Martin Amis

[Ecurb]

Oh, I'm thinking this posting of yours is meant to be taken ironically.

When I said "nepotism" I meant the instances in which relatives of already-successful writers and entertainers catch a break, essentially skipping a step which the rest of us ordinary mortals without "connections" are required to take.

I'll grant some irony in my original post. However, Orwell agrees that as a saint, Gandhi was required to eschew having sex with his wife (that's the kind of thing that leads to strong emotional attachments, which lead to favoring one person over another person). However, Orwell's point is that most of us don't aspire to sainthood. Far from failing to be saintly because it is too difficult for us, we fail because we WANT to favor one person over another person. We WANT romantic love, and parenthood (both of which are discriminatory and involve nepotism).

As for the nepotism that allowed Martin Amis to catch a break -- I'm no Amis expert (I've read some of his essays, but none of his novels), but if he doesn't write well, we need not read his works. If he DOES write well -- why object that he caught a break? There are doubtless some very good novelists who never caught a break, so we have never been lucky enough to read their books. That's too bad -- but why blame Amis? Isn't it the editors' fault, not Amis's?

Where is the horrid poseur whom high school kids are forced to read because he had a famous father? That would be a bad thing -- but I don't think it is actually a problem.

It is doubtless an advantage for those who want to get books published to be born of famous parents, or to be famous themselves. Look at all the actors and actresses churning out children's books. But I can't believe that it is a horrible thing, or that it has much of an impact on those unfamous writers who want to get their books published. So the only reason to "hate" nepotism is jealousy. But isn't that a negative emotion? Shouldn't we be happy about the success of others, instead of hateful about it?

[AuntShecky]

I'll grant some irony in my original post. However, Orwell agrees that as a saint, Gandhi was required to eschew having sex with his wife (that's the kind of thing that leads to strong emotional attachments, which lead to favoring one person over another person). However, Orwell's point is that most of us don't aspire to sainthood. Far from failing to be saintly because it is too difficult for us, we fail because we WANT to favor one person over another person. We WANT romantic love, and parenthood (both of which are discriminatory and involve nepotism).

As for the nepotism that allowed Martin Amis to catch a break -- I'm no Amis expert (I've read some of his essays, but none of his novels), but if he doesn't write well, we need not read his works. If he DOES write well -- why object that he caught a break? There are doubtless some very good novelists who never caught a break, so we have never been lucky enough to read their books. That's too bad -- but why blame Amis? Isn't it the editors' fault, not Amis's?

Where is the horrid poseur whom high school kids are forced to read because he had a famous father? That would be a bad thing -- but I don't think it is actually a problem.

It is doubtless an advantage for those who want to get books published to be born of famous parents, or to be famous themselves. Look at all the actors and actresses churning out children's books. But I can't believe that it is a horrible thing, or that it has much of an impact on those unfamous writers who want to get their books published. So the only reason to "hate" nepotism is jealousy. But isn't that a negative emotion? Shouldn't we be happy about the success of others, instead of hateful about it?

I'm not blaming either Amis, pere or fils -- as I said, Amis the Younger would have been a critical success even without the influence of his father.

Yes, I am happy for the success of others, especially those who had to overcome oppressive poverty and deprivation to get there. I don't want to get into a discussion of J.K. Rowlings, but if the lore about her pre-Potter life is true, I'm glad she hit it so big. It gives hope to those of us who are still struggling, alas, late in life.

[Ecurb]

"Again I saw that under the sun the race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, nor bread to the wise, nor riches to the intelligent, nor favor to those with knowledge, but time and chance happen to them all." -- Ecclesiastes

[Alexander III]

I think his best novels are generally considered to be Money, The Information and, yes, London Fields. The problem with LF - and it's a weakness generally with Amis - is that the plot's a bit thin.

Or you could begin with one of the collections of short stories.

Plot is hardly an issue for me, One of my favorite novels is The Sun Also Rises, which is virtually plotless "we went here, then went there, had a drink, then went back over there, had another drink and went back there".

I think I shall go with Money first, I will let you know what i think when I am done.

[sixsmith]

But there's nothing wrong with writing "He walked into the room." if it's what your character would do. Amis' solution to writing simple direct prose is to make his diction borderline retarded. He describes everything in bizarre language that doesn't capture the reality of what he's describing at all. His whole style is substituting novelty for accuracy. .

I tend to agree Mortal. I applaud Amis' opposition to the hackneyed, but his own prose, unfocused and awkward, has always struck me as inauthentic. Indeed, in prosecuting his 'war against cliche', he seems to have forgotten that language, at least in the service of fiction, is supposed to describe and animate the world one has invented. Thus in Money and London Fields, we get a lot of bright lights, but very little habitation. I think Time's Arrow is simply a conceptual failure.

Of those that I've read, I think The Information is his best novel and certainly his funniest. However, it too grows tiresome, as the bulk of the comedy derives from a rather crude and repetitive inversion of the two protagonists and their respective fortunes.

[mal4mac]

Orwell agrees that as a saint, Gandhi was required to eschew having sex with his wife (that's the kind of thing that leads to strong emotional attachments, which lead to favoring one person over another person). However, Orwell's point is that most of us don't aspire to sainthood. Far from failing to be saintly because it is too difficult for us, we fail because we WANT to favor one person over another person. We WANT romantic love, and parenthood (both of which are discriminatory and involve nepotism).

Joseph and Mary, Isidore and Maria were married couples. Sts. Peter, Monica, Frances of Rome, Margaret of Scotland, Perpetua and Felicity, Bridget of Sweden, Elizabeth of Hungary, Elizabeth of Portugal and Elizabeth Ann Seton were married, as were St. Thomas More, St. Stephen of Hungary, St. Henry and St. Edward the Confessor.

http://www.albahouse.org/Married.htm

Even the most saintly of saints has to favour one person over another. You have to choose which leper to wash... you can't wash them all... Surely you can have sex with your wife without then favouring her excessively... if you're a saint?

If a saint takes time off from washing lepers to be kind to small children then does that make him a failure as a saint? Even if those children happen to be his own?

[MarkBastable]

His dad's worth a look too. Though if you sample Kingsley because you like Martin, is that nepotism as well?

[Alexander III]

To be honest I am not a fan of the father, Lucky Jim didn't do much for me, but I guess that is because it seems a distinct british novel, and unless one is british one cannot enjoy it as much; or so it seems.

On the subject of nepotism, it's one of those things which from a theoretical position is inferior to meritocracy, yet in the real world it is hypocritical to object to nepotism; the fact is very few men would not attempt to use whatever influence, power and money they have to advance their children. The only people who passionately speak against nepotism are those who cant do it for their children due to their own lack of wealth or influence, or people like Gandhi who as Orwell points out are saints, but most of all they are inhuman, they act in ways contrary to the nature of man, they appear almost alien.

[Ecurb]

If a saint takes time off from washing lepers to be kind to small children then does that make him a failure as a saint? Even if those children happen to be his own?

Did you read the essay? Gandhi refrained from having sex with his wife for the last 30 years of their marriage. He did it because he thought it risked strong attachments that could compromise his principles. Orwell agrees that this is a correct assessment of Gandhi's part. I'll grant that some saints are married, but it's irrelevant to the point.

Lancelot du Lac was pretty saintly, too, until he was compromised.

[prendrelemick]

Plot is hardly an issue for me, One of my favorite novels is The Sun Also Rises, which is virtually plotless "we went here, then went there, had a drink, then went back over there, had another drink and went back there".

I think I shall go with Money first, I will let you know what i think when I am done.

An excellent choice, I look forward to hearing what you think.

[MarkBastable]

When I said "nepotism" I meant the instances in which relatives of already-successful writers and entertainers catch a break, essentially skipping a step which the rest of us ordinary mortals without "connections" are required to take.

I'm not sure that that's really an issue. The only step anyone is expected to take, in practice, is to get the buy-in of an agent. Writing a really saleable book will do that, whoever writes it. It might be easier for the son of an established writer to get a manuscript in front of an agent - but the extent to which that makes the agent more likely to sign the writer isn't likely to be significant.

To put it another way, faced with a really good book from the son of a plumber and a mediocre one from the son of a novelist, the agent's going to choose the former, because it's more likely to make money.

As an aside - magazines keep filenotes on writers, telling editors what the writer's best at, what they can be commissioned to write, how much maintenance they require.

In the offices of a British magazine, I once saw the card for Martin Amis. It didn't say "Son of Kingsley." It said, "Brilliant. Accept anything."

[AuntShecky]

I hear ya, Mark. But the trick is getting an agent to read one's work in the first place. I've been in the slush pile
so long they're gonna start printing it on maps of New York
State.