Martin Amis

[Cleanthess]

As a writer of fiction, he has a comic gift, like his father - there are memorably comical moments in, for example, Dead Babies, although his humor tends to be nasty - the sort of humor based on someone getting humiliated or hurt, or both.

Totally agree with you on that. For example, in an Amis' short story published in the New Yorker about the end of the world, the "guardian robot of Mars" or some-such invites a select group of humans to his planet to discuss matters over. Needless to say the robot just wants to mock us (-Most planets develop intelligent life within a few million years. On the other hand, for billions of years your planet continued to do its impression of a septic tank; and why not? it was a very good impression.) We get put in our place. Upon hearing the news of the failure of the mission to Mars, characters in the story decide to do the most horrible things to get their kicks before the end comes (abuse orphans and the like...). I know, funnnnnyyyyy.
Another writer whose humor seems as distasteful to me is Roth. His funny scenes are either mean or demeaning. Somebody gets humiliated/told/put in their place in as nasty a manner as possible. Or we get exposed to: "look what a big lecher Portnoy/Zuckerman/the Breast/some other guy is/am". And the mean silliness (or is it silly meanness?) has been there from the beginning, from "The conversion of the Jews" to "When she was good" to "Our gang" and so on. Now I'm told that he got better with "Human Stain" and "American Pastoral", but I guess I'll never find out.

[Flint]

Interesting post Flint, I'll probably pick up a few of his books, soonish, because I'd like to get an angle on him now. Today, instead, I picked up Lucky Jim.

Oh Lucky Jim! One of funniest novels of all times. (Maybe I shouldn't have said this. You know, sometimes when people tell you how good some book is, then you feel sort of disappointed, and you think Well, it is good, but not THAT good. That didn't happen to me anyway - everyone had told me how funny it was, and then yes, it was every bit as funny as I had been told).

If you're going to read Martin, I'd recommend his early fiction, especially Money, but of course everyone is talking about his more recent fiction, so ...

[Flint]

Michael Moorcock gave Amis K and Amis M (You don't mind if I don't use the frenchpedantic postmodifieres 'père' and 'fils', do you?) a taste of their own medicine, nay, a much nastier medicine in his 'King of the City', where they appear as very thinly disguised characters under the names of Rex Martin and Felix Martin, and are made a lot of cruel fun of (see link).

[Hamlet]

Oh Lucky Jim! One of funniest novels of all times. (Maybe I shouldn't have said this. You know, sometimes when people tell you how good some book is, then you feel sort of disappointed, and you think Well, it is good, but not THAT good. That didn't happen to me anyway - everyone had told me how funny it was, and then yes, it was every bit as funny as I had been told).

If you're going to read Martin, I'd recommend his early fiction, especially Money, but of course everyone is talking about his more recent fiction, so ...

Yes, I'm sure it is that funny. I like good lit like most of us here and so I'm fairly well adjusted when it comes to the general consensus on works, so look forward to reading Lucky Jim.

I've read that MONEY was Amis at his best, but a Sunday Times Culture article recently reported that his latest novel has lost much of the smart writing and sharpness of his prior glories, but my impression was that he'd also cleared off to the US of A because of hostile press over here. Or so I was informed!

[Flint]

because of hostile press over here

The British press has never been sympathetic to him - because he's always worked hard at making himself as unlikable as possible. I've got before me an interview in the Standard dated August 7, 1981, where he is referred to as "Waspish novelist Martin Amis". Nothing new, then, about media hostility.

[Stiffelio]

I posted this about Amis in some other thread:

"Amis is one of those writers whose personal antics attract more attention than their writing. Personally, Amis's teeth, family life, political ideas... don't interest me at all.

The problem with Amis is something that has happened before to a lot of successful men: he is very good at one thing, and then he comes to think that he is very good at everything. He went to Oxford, and he is very well read in English language literature. He has produced some interesting criticism (The War Against Cliché), and he would have made a good literature teacher. As a writer of fiction, he has a comic gift, like his father - there are memorably comical moments in, for example, Dead Babies, although his humour tends to be nasty - the sort of humour based on someone getting humiliated or hurt, or both. All in all, he has written a promising novel (Success), a passably good one (Money), and a lot of worthless pretentious stuff.

As a political commentator, he knows very little, he has very simple, almost childish, ideas, and his self-confidence is endless - a perfect recipe for disaster.

Not to be taken seriously".

It seems to me that what bothers you most is the fact that Amis is on many occasions "politically incorrect", and that's the parameter by which you judge his sense of humor. I frankly don't agree at all with your point of view. Amis is less hypocritical than most writers and he's bold enough to get into trouble and pay the consequences for it. I think he's a brilliant writer of both fiction and non-fiction. I haven't read his two latest novels but so far my favorite Amis novel is London Fields. All the early ones are great too and I also admire the wit with which he wrote Time's Arrow. I agree that he went down a non optimal path in his next couple of novels, but The House of Meetings finds him IMO in top form once again...and it's not a funny novel at all. I look forward to reading Lionel Asbo as soon as I comes out in paperback.

[Flint]

It seems to me that what bothers you most is the fact that Amis is on many occasions "politically incorrect", and that's the parameter by which you judge his sense of humor. I frankly don't agree at all with your point of view. Amis is less hypocritical than most writers and he's bold enough to get into trouble and pay the consequences for it. I think he's a brilliant writer of both fiction and non-fiction. I haven't read his two latest novels but so far my favorite Amis novel is London Fields. All the early ones are great too and I also admire the wit with which he wrote Time's Arrow. I agree that he went down a non optimal path in his next couple of novels, but The House of Meetings finds him IMO in top form once again...and it's not a funny novel at all. I look forward to reading Lionel Asbo as soon as I comes out in paperback.

You mean that I dislike Amis as a writer because he is a disagreeable person? No, I don't think so. Because he is a reactionary? No, I don't think so. You see I have praised -as a writer- Larkin (Amis's godfather), who was a creep and a thatcherite. I have praised Quevedo, who seems to have been a rather nasty character. I have praised Vargas Llosa whose politics I heartly dislike. If you were to discard writers because you don't like them as persons, or because you don't like their politics, you'd probably have to give up reading altogether. Ezra Pound supported fascism, Céline was an odious anti-semite -are we going to refuse to read their works? Are we going to banish from our libraries all the poets who wrote odes to Stalin?

We could embark on a sociological analysis of Martin Amis's writings (his reaction -fear and loathing of the lower classes- to the process of de-industrialisation in the UK), but we don't have the time or the space. We were talking about his humour. The difference between K. Amis's humour and M.Amis's is that in old Kingsley's novels humour is based on somebody putting his foot in, or on somebody been stingy or loud-mouthed – not on someone getting hurt. For example, when someone gets hurt -very- in 'Ending Up' because of a mistake involving a laxative, there's no joke about it, the narrative voice doesn't rejoice in the event. On the contrary Martin's humour always reeks of schadenfreude - the narrative voice sounds so happy about someone getting hurt, about nasty things happening to people. There are memorably comic moments in Martin's early fiction: the (cruel) description of Keith's physical repulsiveness in 'Dead Babies', the description of the office lavatory in 'Success'. 'Money' is full of (mostly dark) comic moments (and those typically Amisian bar-room jokes like the character who says "my golden handjob" when he should have said "my golden handshake"). If only Martin Amis had stuck to his role as a comic writer. Problem is he wanted to do better than his father, he wanted to be a 'serious writer', and I don't think he has the equipment for that. (Talking about humour, one has to be fair and admit that his highly transparent send-up of the then nascient New-Labour in 'The Information' was very intelligent and very funny).

I won't say that Martin Amis is a worthless writer, but I do say there is life in British fiction beyond the Amis-Barnes-McEwan trio. The other day I said something to the effect that (I was then talking about McEwan) successful first novelists ought to be taken to Heaven in a fiery chariot (so they wouldn't be forced by the media-publishing establishment to go on writing mediocre fiction all their lives). In the case of Martin Amis, the fiery chariot should have picked him up after his fifth novel (not bad if you come to think of it). In the case of Barnes, well, I'd better stop here.

[Cleanthess]

In the case of Martin Amis, the fiery chariot should have picked him up after his fifth novel (not bad if you come to think of it). In the case of Barnes, well, I'd better stop here.

Hey! I liked Flaubert's Parrot and parts of the History of the world in 10 and 1/2 chapters. If only he'd stopped there, spirited away to... Ahh. I see your point.
To expand a bit, I think the problem with Amis' fiction is a matter of Tone, not of subject matter. Amis' tone may strike some readers as unlikeable: the hints of schadenfreude you mention.
I gladly admit that London Fields is very good. But even there he stole the premise (and a couple of details) from Garcia Marquez' Chronicle of a death foretold.

[Stiffelio]

You mean that I dislike Amis as a writer because he is a disagreeable person? No, I don't think so. Because he is a reactionary? No, I don't think so. You see I have praised -as a writer- Larkin (Amis's godfather), who was a creep and a thatcherite. I have praised Quevedo, who seems to have been a rather nasty character. I have praised Vargas Llosa whose politics I heartly dislike. If you were to discard writers because you don't like them as persons, or because you don't like their politics, you'd probably have to give up reading altogether. Ezra Pound supported fascism, Céline was an odious anti-semite -are we going to refuse to read their works? Are we going to banish from our libraries all the poets who wrote odes to Stalin?

We could embark on a sociological analysis of Martin Amis's writings (his reaction -fear and loathing of the lower classes- to the process of de-industrialisation in the UK), but we don't have the time or the space. We were talking about his humour. The difference between K. Amis's humour and M.Amis's is that in old Kingsley's novels humour is based on somebody putting his foot in, or on somebody been stingy or loud-mouthed – not on someone getting hurt. For example, when someone gets hurt -very- in 'Ending Up' because of a mistake involving a laxative, there's no joke about it, the narrative voice doesn't rejoice in the event. On the contrary Martin's humour always reeks of schadenfreude - the narrative voice sounds so happy about someone getting hurt, about nasty things happening to people. There are memorably comic moments in Martin's early fiction: the (cruel) description of Keith's physical repulsiveness in 'Dead Babies', the description of the office lavatory in 'Success'. 'Money' is full of (mostly dark) comic moments (and those typically Amisian bar-room jokes like the character who says "my golden handjob" when he should have said "my golden handshake"). If only Martin Amis had stuck to his role as a comic writer. Problem is he wanted to do better than his father, he wanted to be a 'serious writer', and I don't think he has the equipment for that. (Talking about humour, one has to be fair and admit that his highly transparent send-up of the then nascient New-Labour in 'The Information' was very intelligent and very funny).

I won't say that Martin Amis is a worthless writer, but I do say there is life in British fiction beyond the Amis-Barnes-McEwan trio. The other day I said something to the effect that (I was then talking about McEwan) successful first novelists ought to be taken to Heaven in a fiery chariot (so they wouldn't be forced by the media-publishing establishment to go on writing mediocre fiction all their lives). In the case of Martin Amis, the fiery chariot should have picked him up after his fifth novel (not bad if you come to think of it). In the case of Barnes, well, I'd better stop here.

Your comments are tainted by the usual leftie resentment and false rationale.

[Flint]

Your comments are tainted by the usual leftie resentment and false rationale.

I am disappointed. I write a five-hundred-word reply to your post, I mention writers, I give quotes, I argue my case... and you come up with a curt one-liner about “leftie resentment”.

Do you mean to say that because I’m not a political conservative, my literary tastes and my critical judgement are flawed? Are you going to refuse to debate literature with anyone who doesn’t share your political views?

If I were a dogmatic leftist I wouldn’t be praising, I wouldn’t even be mentioning, authors who are or were politically on the right, as I have done in this forum.

Why should I feel resentment towards Martin Amis? We are roughly the same age, but I never met him in person. He never seduced any of my girlfriends. He never took a job from me. I’ve never envied him (it was never my vocation to be a professional writer). On the contrary, he’s always struck me as a rather unhappy person. As my Spanish friends would say, “un amargao”. Don’t be “amargao” yourself, and put that unpleasant sectarian vocabulary (“leftie”, etc) where it belongs – the trash can. We are all friends here – or there’s no reason why we shouldn’t be.

[Stiffelio]

I am disappointed. I write a five-hundred-word reply to your post, I mention writers, I give quotes, I argue my case... and you come up with a curt one-liner about “leftie resentment”.

Do you mean to say that because I’m not a political conservative, my literary tastes and my critical judgement are flawed? Are you going to refuse to debate literature with anyone who doesn’t share your political views?

If I were a dogmatic leftist I wouldn’t be praising, I wouldn’t even be mentioning, authors who are or were politically on the right, as I have done in this forum.

Why should I feel resentment towards Martin Amis? We are roughly the same age, but I never met him in person. He never seduced any of my girlfriends. He never took a job from me. I’ve never envied him (it was never my vocation to be a professional writer). On the contrary, he’s always struck me as a rather unhappy person. As my Spanish friends would say, “un amargao”. Don’t be “amargao” yourself, and put that unpleasant sectarian vocabulary (“leftie”, etc) where it belongs – the trash can. We are all friends here – or there’s no reason why we shouldn’t be.

I've been reading all your posts and, unfortunately, the cumulative effect I get from them is that you consistently attack any (mostly British, e.g. Amis, McEwan, Barnes, Rushdie) writer who has been successful, who has then attracted media attention (willingly or not) and you then pounce viciously on anything they say or write, losing any objectivity in your judgement. The venom you spill over them is even more caustic if the writer happens to have a right wing view of life (e.g. Ferguson, Johnson). I call that resentment and of the leftie kind, or sheer envy, to use a more pedestrian term. Yes, for a moment I thought you were a9 a frustrated writer or b) a frustrated agent working for frustrated writers.

[Flint]

I've been reading all your posts and, unfortunately, the cumulative effect I get from them is that you consistently attack any (mostly British, e.g. Amis, McEwan, Barnes, Rushdie) writer who has been successful, who has then attracted media attention (willingly or not) and you then pounce viciously on anything they say or write, losing any objectivity in your judgement. The venom you spill over them is even more caustic if the writer happens to have a right wing view of life (e.g. Ferguson, Johnson). I call that resentment and of the leftie kind, or sheer envy, to use a more pedestrian term. Yes, for a moment I thought you were a9 a frustrated writer or b) a frustrated agent working for frustrated writers.

First, thank you for reading my posts, but let me correct a few points.

I never said anything against Rushdie (a writer I highly value, although of course I like some of his books better than others). I never said anything against Ferguson (I've never read him). I did make a joke about poor old Johnson, but, well, he's so far on the right that you don't have to be a leftist to disagree with him.

You are mistaken to think that I attack "any (mostly British [...]) writer who has been successful". I have praised very successful British writers, like Michael Moorcock (who has a wider readership that both Amises put together), or Sarah Waters, both British. Or Rachel Cusk, also British. Or Zadie Smith, also British. Or Ali Smith (no relation), also British. The problem might be, no offence meant, that you are only familiar with a very small number of British writers.

Then I have mentioned and praised a fairly large number of American writers (meaning born or based in the US). Is that a sign of being a 'leftie', too?

As for your esteemed Martin Amis, I criticised him for talking about things he knows nothing about, not necessarily for being on the right. Martin Amis is an intelligent person, but he can say very silly things.

[Stiffelio]

You are mistaken to think that I attack "any (mostly British [...]) writer who has been successful". I have praised very successful British writers, like Michael Moorcock (who has a wider readership that both Amises put together), or Sarah Waters, both British. Or Rachel Cusk, also British. Or Zadie Smith, also British. Or Ali Smith (no relation), also British. The problem might be, no offence meant, that you are only familiar with a very small number of British writers.

I should have put it better like this: "any (mostly male white Oxbridge British [...]) writer who has been successful". The ladies you mention are also quite talented but they belong to a different generation from your hated threesome. I only read Zadie and loved her On Beauty; let's hope she can sustain her level of writing over the years and doesn't expose herself to the media too much, lest the future Flints of the world will start saying that she was just a flash in the pan and bla bla bla how idiotic she really is. Regarding Mr Moorcock, I admit I've never heard or him let alone read him, nor do I think a writer who needs 10 different pen names can to be taken seriously. Finally, I have read many more British writers past, recent past, and new comers than you can imagine but that's beyond the subject of this thread.

[Flint]

I should have put it better like this: "any (mostly male white Oxbridge British [...]) writer who has been successful". The ladies you mention are also quite talented but they belong to a different generation from your hated threesome. I only read Zadie and loved her On Beauty; let's hope she can sustain her level of writing over the years and doesn't expose herself to the media too much, lest the future Flints of the world will start saying that she was just a flash in the pan and bla bla bla how idiotic she really is. Regarding Mr Moorcock, I admit I've never heard or him let alone read him, nor do I think a writer who needs 10 different pen names can to be taken seriously. Finally, I have read many more British writers past, recent past, and new comers than you can imagine but that's beyond the subject of this thread.

Again, let me dispel this misunderstanding. I’m not biased against any writer because of their political stance, and I’m not biased against any writer because of their race, gender or because of the university they went to. It is offensive of you to suggest otherwise, but I’ll choose not to take offence.

Second point, I do not hate Messrs Amis, Barnes, McEwan, poor little things. Why should I hate someone I’ve never met? On the contrary, I find Mr Barnes a very nice man, Mr McEwan very courteous and polite, and Mr Amis, yes, Mr Amis rather disagreeable, but I assure you I do not entertain any strong feelings – hate or otherwise – toward him.

I have criticised Mr Amis for saying and writing silly things. They’re on record. I can quote them to you. Nothing personal.

I have criticised Mr McEwan for the type of books he writes, not for anything about his person. Was I too caustic in my criticism? I don’t think so. You call my anti-McEwan ironies “venom”? Come on.

As for Mr Barnes, well, I only said something like there is life in British literature beyond the Amis-Barnes-McEwan trio. Nothing really hateful or sectarian, now, was it?

So you’ve read some English novels outside the famed trio? You’ve read one book by Zadie Smith? Good for you. Why did you have to wait till her third novel, may I ask? Do you have to wait until a writer has been blessed by all the mainstream media? By the way, are we talking about the same writer? You hope she “doesn't expose herself to the media too much”? But, my friend, she has exposed herself to the media a lot, and has been criticised for that of course – certainly not by me. You need to catch up.

Regarding Mr Moorcock, let me assure you he is a serious writer. But of course you have no trust in the “Flints of the world”, people who are not famous, and who don’t write in proper media, and who show ‘leftie’ leanings to make matters worse. Here’s a link to a review of Moorcock’s two ‘literary’ novels in a highly respectable medium. That you never heard of Michael Moorcock comes to me as no surprise. Concerning what you say about Moorcock’s many pen names, I think you read the Wikipedia article too quickly: He has written all his literary fiction under his own name. On the other hand, your claim that an author who uses different pen names is not to be taken seriously I find laughable. Do you not know any famous writers who have written under different names? Do you not know any ‘literary’ writers who use a pseudonym when they write genre fiction? Again, you need to catch up.

As to your having read tonnes of books by British writers, I will take your word for it, but allow me to say that in spite of being so well read in English you seem to have difficulty identifying some registers – if you mistake light irony for venom, and criticism for hate there’s something seriously wrong with your language decoding abilities. Or with your general attitude: will you perhaps come to accept that someone who doesn’t share your literary views is not necessarily a prejudiced, venomous leftie? I want to hope so.

[Hamlet]

I'm new to Amis, being more of classicist and older litearatures fan, but he's a dam fine writer IMHO.

"Money" is excellent. Amis at his best, I suspect.