Martin Amis: fire away!

Lol

Zone of Interest and Night Train weren't bad. Koba the Dread I never got round to.

Wonder if I made up the thing about the sense of humor or humour even. Don't think so.

Okay, this is what I found in his review of High-Rise:

I hope no one wastes their time worrying whether High-Rise is prescient, admonitory or sobering. For Ballard is neither believable nor unbelievable, just as his characterization is merely a matter of ‘roles’ and his situations merely a matter of ‘context’: he is abstract, at once totally humourless and entirely unserious. The point of his visions is to provide him with imagery, with opportunities to write well, and this seems to me to be the only intelligible way of getting the hang of his fiction. The prose of High-Rise may not have the baleful glare of that of Crash or Vermilion Sands, but the book is an intense and vivid bestiary, which lingers in the mind and chronically disquiets it.

Amis, Martin. The War Against Cliche (Vintage International) (p. 103). Knopf Doubleday Publishing Group.

It's here, as you said:
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2009/apr/25/jg-ballard-martin-amis

Ballard will be remembered as the most original English writer of the last century. He used to like saying that writers were "one-man teams" and needed the encouragement of the crowd (ie, their readers). But he will also be remembered as a one-man genre; no one else is remotely like him. He was a talisman. Very few Ballardians (who are almost all male) were foolish enough to emulate him. He was sui generis. What was influential, though, was the marvellous creaminess of his prose, and the weird and sudden expansions of his imagery.

Some of his books seems to be out of print in the US, including Money and The Rachel Papers.

they were mainstays of the remainder table for at least a decade

feels like that generation of british male authors (amis, will self, julian barnes) have failed to cultivate new readers in this century.

suppose this is true also of jeanette winterson, to keep it from being solely male authors. I'm in the US so perhaps this hasn't held true in the UK, but all of these writers got a large amount of international attention in the 80's and 90's and then they seemed to just vanish on the US market.

Just now recalled that Christopher Priest ended up considering the terrible reviews he got from Martin Amis as badges of honor.

I think he has them on his website for every book of his that Amis reviewed.

Priest is admittedly a very patchy writer. The Affirmation is really good though.

I have some remembered fondness for M. Amis, as well as some frustratingly not-quite-my-sort-of-thing bits. I do not think I want to reread any of him. The Information and London Fields had good bits but nothing I wish to revisit. Information especially was too much of its time.

I recall Rachel Papers being a trifle unpleasant, but Metroland being worse. Which one has the reused condom scene?

In contrast, though, I could really easily reread Sexing the Cherry, The Passion, Flaubert's Parrot, and possibly History of the World in 10 1/2 Chapters (well, not all of it but I could skim the good bits).

Actually I think I DO reread

Actually I think I DO reread Flaubert's Parrot every 10 years or so.

I agree that authors like these are probably not attracting new readers in the current century. Neither is Douglas Coupland.

I only became familiar with Amis a couple of months ago when someone on my street put a copy of The War Against Cliché out on the sidewalk and I picked it up. I read it and enjoyed it far more than I expected to. Echoing what has been said elsewhere, his book reviews were very very good and his pantheon of great authors was so convincing it made me want to read late Saul Bellow novels among other things I never would've considered.

feels like that generation of british male authors (amis, will self, julian barnes) have failed to cultivate new readers in this century.

― I? not I! He! He! HIM! (akm), Sunday, May 21, 2023 11:25 PM (yesterday) bookmarkflaglink

idk - the generation is the first Granta list (& Self I think was really next-gen, effectively Amis mkII back in the day) & that's also McEwan and Ishiguro, who've done alright this century.

Even Barnes faded into mid-list respectability

sorry unfinished thought:

Even Barnes faded into mid-list respectability, which is a bit different from Self & Amis where you're puzzled by who reads this & sometimes what they think they're doing

https://www.irishtimes.com/culture/books/2023/05/20/martin-amis-1949-2023-a-sturdy-pillar-of-high-achievement-a-master-turner-of-phrases/

"it's been 25 years since I read London Fields & mostly remember the fucking Nicola Six nonsense and Keith Talent being a grotesque too far"

how so

Like I say, a long time, but iirc he's straight up prole-mockery, darts and curries. I'll re-read and see if I've got that wrong. In Money at least Self is from there and always collapsing back into that, & it's a bit more dynamic (and maybe Amis scratching at a fear - I am not a major novelist, I am basically a shabby man with fucked up teeth who wants to drink, fuck and play pool. & my real father is not Nabokov/Bellow/The Landlord but Kingsley/Fat Vince).

Kingsley >> Martin

It doesn't feel like that gen of British authors is being read with as much enthusiasm as Zadie Smith this century.

But I only tried one Julian Barnes novel, so hardly the target audience for this.

fwiw I once heard Ballard being interviewed on the radio and he came across as a pompous humourless old windbag - though his voice probably added to the aura of pomposity.

of course it's ill-formed -- like every single sentence this aggravating fvck wrote -- but as mark blacklock (writing for birkbeck abt ballard and humour and quietly linked above by JB) notes "at once totally humourless and entirely unserious" is not an entirely terrible way of approaching how surrealism works, viz via oxymoron…

hence, like the joke abt the dogs saying fuck off, i assume amis stole it from someone else. there's a preening glow of the second-hand to his "style" which i find just radioactively offputting, and i don't even generally rate originality as a virtue

I recall Rachel Papers being a trifle unpleasant, but Metroland being worse. Which one has the reused condom scene?

Rachel Papers. Haven't read Metroland in 30 years but I'd expect it to be a bit less unpleasant just because aiui Barnes thinks women are human.

Read 4 or 5 Barnes novels, cannot remember much about any of them except the bit in 10.5 Chapters where Leicester win the FA Cup.

Flaubert's Parrot didn't leave a lasting impression. I got a copy of Bovary (the Lydia Davis translation, which Barnes hates) and am going to try that soon.

Amis knew Ballard's work very well, reviewed book after book as they came out, and I think knew Ballard personally also (Ballard had been good friends with his father). One might diverge from his particular views on Ballard but they're not based on ignorance or pretence.

I would be somewhat close to poster Woof's statement. Most people agree that most of Amis's novels were 'flawed' in some way or other (some of them I have actively thought were dreadful - including, I'm afraid, London Fields and The Information and Yellow Dog - a large slice of his career!), but he also had rare, prodigious talent and wrote many things that were amusing and memorable for many people. He was a big part of recent literary history. Literature has often been been more entertaining for his presence.

Evaluatively comparing MA to his father seems pointless. You might as well say he's inferior to Nabokov, Virginia Woolf or anyone else. It's enough to judge him on his own merits, if you can find them. Which I, to an extent, can.

It doesn't feel like that gen of British authors is being read with as much enthusiasm as Zadie Smith this century.

tbf she's 20 years down from them so that's full generational shift but yeah the whole lot ended up being overtaken by Hilary Mantel on both critical and popular fronts.

xpost in the same place, really. as some here will know, I'm more of a KA fan - who has his own v uneven oeuvre.

on ballard, leaving aside the weird 'creamy' line, I think MA is otm. Humour isn't a component of his writing, TDoJFKCaaDMR aside if you like, or maybe not - his mode was a form of surrealism. He was a suburban, conservative, pompous man, sure, but his approach to imaginative fiction was extraordinary in its effect. I'm sure I've said this ad nauseam elsewhere, but the minimal component parts of his writing were for his time not the most radical or up to date - c levi-strauss anthropology, frazer, jung, victorian adventure fiction - yet from them he produced something strange, brutal and mesmeric. unlike many other writers at all.

The main thing that damages MA for me is his misogyny. Which is incontrovertible in his fiction and parts of his non-fiction alike.

Evaluatively comparing MA to his father seems pointless.

well, yeah

Xy, in college I read every translation I could find and wrote an essay comparing them.

I am not sure if Barnes influenced me to prefer Eleanor Marx Aveling. But the project damaged my brain, and I cannot imagine attempting anything like that ever again.

At my current age and with my current attention span I count myself fortunate to make it through a day where I don't lose my car keys.

I only became familiar with Amis a couple of months ago when someone on my street put a copy of The War Against Cliché out on the sidewalk and I picked it up. I read it and enjoyed it far more than I expected to. Echoing what has been said elsewhere, his book reviews were very very good and his pantheon of great authors was so convincing it made me want to read late Saul Bellow novels among other things I never would've considered.

― Josefa, Monday, May 22, 2023

Great post! Ambushed by unexpected Amis.

Felt like a significant weekend, in terms of personal intimations of mortality. The Smiths and Amis were two things I loved beyond measure as a schoolboy in the mid-1980s - I can probably still recite bits of The Moronic Inferno or Money, just as I can replay every bass and guitar line from the entire Smiths discography on my mental iPod. Feel like both deaths have given a lot of people the opportunity to come out and unashamedly confess their love for something that has seemed slightly shameful for a few decades now - the Guardian/Observer in particular seems on the verge of publishing a special Amis commemorative special issue. I guess James Wood must have been fine tuning his NYer Amis obit for a while - seems like his health was an open secret - but I think he got it right in comparing Amis to Wodehous https://www.newyorker.com/culture/postscript/martin-amiss-comic-music In a funny, Empsonian way, both were pastoral writers?

Spent a bit of Sunday morning flicking through the War Against Cliche and Money and I think a lot of it, on a paragraph by paragraph basis, is still really funny. Went to a Ian Penman reading the other week where he was explaining his turn to the Europe of Derrida and Fassbinder in the late 70s - "what was the alternative? The second Martin Amis novel?" to much slightly smug chuckles. To be honest, these days I would much rather read a few pages of Money than anything by Penman.

tbf she's 20 years down from them so that's full generational shift but yeah the whole lot ended up being overtaken by Hilary Mantel on both critical and popular fronts.

― woof, Monday, 22 May 2023 bookmarkflaglink

I was trying to hunt for an article interviewing young writers (mostly women and many from BAME backgrounds) I saw a while ago but couldn't see it just now (Google is shit and must die). Smith 'broke' in 2000 and I think they were barely in their 20s so next generation.

I can't see a piece like that written about any of this lot. Be interesting to see if the reputation recovers.

Ballard was far, far better. I read his books on the back of a lot of genuine enthusiasm (decades after they were published) for what he did.

On twitter when a writer dies you often get some genuine affection but there isn't much, sometimes there is outright hostility as he was a bigot. If it wasn't for some of the posts here the other tributes would be from the likes of...Boris Johnson and Matthew D'Ancona.

Other twitter have come from Backlisted Pod and John Self. Who annoy me so..

And Paul Mason!

I agree with Wood's fine tribute, except that I don't remotely agree that THE INFORMATION is the best novel.

I largely agree with poster Gimbel, save that I don't comprehend what is meant by 'pastoral'. I never understood what Empson's book was about.

MONEY features a very minor character called Tab Penman.

I believe Amis in Koba the Dread compares the suffering he felt as a result of the crying of his infant child to the suffering of the victims of the Gulag, which to put it mildly seems a bit rich and was laughed at a great deal at the time of publication. OTOH Money was a good read when I was eighteen, so who's to say good or bad etc.

apologies, this amusing paragraph tells me Amis was taken to task by Orlando Figes of all people for "comparing the crying of his six-month daughter with the cries from Butyrki Prison in Moscow during the Great Terror."

On twitter when a writer dies you often get some genuine affection but there isn't much, sometimes there is outright hostility as he was a bigot. If it wasn't for some of the posts here the other tributes would be from the likes of...Boris Johnson and Matthew D'Ancona.

I would expect every tribute to come from British men aged 45-70, & mostly Oxbridge.

I know quite a few women who don't fit that stereotype who love Amis? Nicola Barker for one.

nicola barker is also a far better writer

unlike james wood

xps
Fair. Big lazy generalisation. But almost everything I've seen published so far does fit (James Wood, Boyd Tonkin, Sam Leith, Philip Hensher, everyone xyzzz mentions, Geoff Dyer, etc. That's putting aside his peer group novelists like Rushdie and Boyd.)

I think it says as much about the address books of broadsheet culture editors as it does about a particular writer's appeal. I imagine Kevin Barry could write something interesting too.

heh -- I wondered whether to bother with The Information.

Punchline here is pretty funny though.

The Information (1995) was notable not so much for its critical success, but for the scandals surrounding its publication. The enormous advance of £500,000 (almost US$800,000) demanded and subsequently obtained by Amis for the novel attracted what the author described as "an of hostility" from writers and critics

I'll stan for *The Information*. It's ugly in the usual Amis ways but has a horrible dark energy about it and mostly punches up/sideways.

And he spent most of the advance on his teeth, right? He came in for some weird extended criticism about this iirr? I mean, sure, bougie in the extreme to spend vast amounts on cosmetic surgery but the dude did have a tumour removed.

An what of hostility?

Eisteddfod, turns out