I’m very excited about the new Martin Amis novel The Pregnant Widow – due next February. He spoke about it at a festival recently, as reported in the Telegraph today:
‘Set among a group of bright young things having a party in an Italian castle, he described the book as “rather like a country house mystery, except it’s not whether the butler did it but who’s going to have sex with whom.”‘
Sounds like it might have similarities with his second novel, Dead Babies. Well that sounds good to me, I still think his first three books – The Rachel Papers, Dead Babies and Success – are his best works, along with his memoir Experience. I’ve never understood the fuss about Money (due to be adapted by the BBC next year) which I think is totally overrated.
I can’t wait for Pregnant Widow. Are you an Amis fan? Which of his books did you love or hate?
Did you see his philosemitic conversations with Christopher Hitchens? I can post a link if you haven’t.
I didn’t. Please do!
Oh Chas Money is superb. I didn’t enjoy House Of Meetings. Have you looked at Kingsley’s?
Yes, I love Kingsley Amis’s books. The Old Devils is my favourite, though his collection of essays, articles and tips On Drink is probably my favourite.
I admit to being a Martin Amis fan. I think he has a superb writing style, one to be envied.
In my opinion, he excels at literary criticism. His review of John Fowles’s Mantissa published in the New York Times Book Review in October 1977 stands out as an example of how a hostile review can be carried out:
This was a delight to read as was his review of Thomas Harris’s Hannibal that he published in Talk in September 1999:
Brilliant!
These reviews, and many others, can be seen in Amis’s book, The War Against Cliché: Essays and Reviews, 1971-2000
As well as his reviews, I should also mention that I thought his three part piece, “The age of horrorism,” published in the Guardian in 2006 to be not just well written but also insightful.
Brilliant indeed, Michael.
I remember someone saying of Amis that it’s not just that he writes good books, chapters, pages or paragraphs – he writes good sentences, which then lead to the rest.
Chas,
That sounds like a fine description. Consider this short paragraph from his review of The Philosopher’s Pupil by Iris Murdoch that was published in the Observer in May 1983:
The final sentence drives his point home and just made me laugh. He knows how to write well constructed sentences!
Haha! Very good!
I wrote about Amis’s writing on nuclear paranoia and terror here http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/booksblog/2008/jan/18/whenamiswentnuclear
On a lighter note, I wrote about him here too: http://www.oyvagoy.com/2009/04/09/everything-and-nothing/
The article in the second link is a bit cheeky.
For all the opprobrium it attracted I do insist that Yellow Dog is Martin Amis at his best. The ‘wanker’ cocktail passage is hard to forget.
Here’s the talk between Hitchens and Amis on YouTube about Saul Bellow, Antisemitism etc (in nine parts). Make yourself a cuppa and give yourself an hour or so of wonderful conversation. If you liked Amis before, you’ll love him after:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KXUh4FUicxE&feature=PlayList&p=B1A91636B952486D&index=0&playnext=1
Chas,
Thanks for your link to your article in the Guardian about Amis’s view on nuclear weapons as expressed in his book, Einstein’s Monsters.
Amis may be “sick” of nuclear weapons but what has been invented cannot be uninvented as Alfred Nobel realised after he developed dynamite. Those who campaigned for nuclear disarmament were often so horrified at the prospect of a nuclear war that they thought it would be “Better Red than Dead.” This is a very simplistic slogan and it ignores the possibility that if the West had disarmed that it may have made nuclear war more likely as opposed to less likely. The reason for this was that the MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) doctrine did actually work. The Soviet Union knew that the consequences of a nuclear strike on the United States could well lead to a nuclear strike by the United States on the Soviet Union. Given the possibility of this it would have been irrational for the Soviet Union to use nuclear weapons in a conflict with the United States. If, however, the West disarmed, then then the Soviet Union would not have had the possibility of a retaliatory strike and would have been free to strike out at the West.
By retaining the nuclear deterrent the West can avoid being blackmailed or dominated by a hostile enemy that has a nuclear capability. Amis wrote his book before the end of the Cold War period when the Soviet Union was considered the major threat and “Better Red than Dead” was a slogan used. Some in favour of keeping the deterrent felt that the lack of freedom and liberty available had the Soviet Union and Communists taken over America that the opposite was the case: “Better dead than Red.” I prefer the idea retaining nuclear defensive powers with the view expressed by Just War theorist Michael Walzer in his book, Just and Unjust Wars that by doing so, you can avoid being dead or red.
It was ‘The Second Plane’ which earned Martin Amis my admiration.
Yes, it is a fine work is The Second Plane.
And thanks NM!
> And thanks NM!
No problem!
Let me know what you think of it when you’ve had a moment (or two!) to listen to it.
I’ve listened to the first segment, loved it thanks.
Meanwhile http://www.thebookseller.com/books/author-profiles/103489-a-return-to-form.html