Martin Amis: Greatest Living Author?

[Geist]

"I have a god-like relationship with the world I've created. It is exactly analogous. There is creation and resolution, and it's all up to me."

It is my current, and perhaps fleeting view that Martin Amis is the greatest living author. If you disagree with the view I ask that you start a new thread wherein you posit your own writer for the title. For now, I offer a brief guide to my favourite writer:

Amis has written ten novels, six non-fiction works, two short-story collections, and over four-hundred reviews etc.

Jobs: Editorial assistant on the Times Literary Supplement; literary editor at the New Statesman.

Once condemened Muslim extremists as 'miserable bastards'.

Cool writer pics:

http://www.edrants.com/reluctant/marty.jpg

http://external.cache.el-mundo.net/elmundo/imagenes/2005/09/27/1127760938_extras_ladillos_1_0.jpg

[Petr]

I have read his London Fields. Utterly pretentious shit.


Petr

[Petyr Baelish]

Ian McEwan is far superior to Amis. If you doubt me for a second, compare Nigh Train to The Comfort of Strangers or Money to The Cement Garden to see who is the better wordsmith.

[Geist]

I have read his London Fields. Utterly pretentious shit.


Petr

I cannot imagine you getting through this book at all based on its content. Whatever inspired somebody like you to read Amis?

[Geist]

Ian McEwan is far superior to Amis.

I disagree, but am also quite fond of McEwan so it is a pleasant disagreement.

[Petyr Baelish]

I disagree, but am also quite fond of McEwan

Really? Any favorite works?

Re: Amis

Please don't tell me you found Night Train readable, let alone entertaining :rofl:. j/k

In all seriousness, Night Train was probably Amis's worst novel, a horrible excuse to waste paper by any standard.

[Petr]

I cannot imagine you getting through this book at all based on its content. Whatever inspired somebody like you to read Amis?
It was required reading on one of my English courses.


Petr

[Petyr Baelish]

It was required reading on one of my English courses.


Petr

And here I was thinking for a split second that perhaps Petr had the inquisitiveness to venture outside of the narrow field of Biblical exegesis and required class readings and sample some of what modern literature has to offer. Looks like I was wrong, though it comes as no great surprise.

I don't suppose you've read Updike, Petr? :rofl:

[Geist]

It was required reading on one of my English courses.


Petr

Ah, thats makes sense. I just could not picture you browsing a bookstore and thinking this looks like my cup of tea :rofl:

[Petyr Baelish]

Ah, thats makes sense. I just could not picture you browsing a bookstore and thinking this looks like my cup of tea :rofl:

I can't picture him browsing a bookstore period, unless it's one with a distinctly Christian theme.

[Geist]

Really? Any favorite works?

Re: Amis

Please don't tell me you found Night Train readable, let alone entertaining :rofl:. j/k

In all seriousness, Night Train was probably Amis's worst novel, a horrible excuse to waste paper by any standard.

Night Train sucked, this much is true. Its Money, London Fields, and The Rachel Papers etc that I have in mind.

I've only read In Between the Sheets, and The Daydreamer by McEwan, and that was quite a while ago. They made something of an impression. I've always wanted to go back and read them again in a more mature state of mind.

[Delmac]

Martin Amis is a much worse writer since he got politics. "The Rachel Papers" and "Dead Babies" aren't bad but everything since - excpet his autobiography "Experience" is a succession of increasingly pretentious wankery. His father was a far superior novelist in every conceivable respect, mostly beacuse he wasn't so inclined to show off. Read "Lucky Jim", "Take A Girl Like You" or "The Old Devils" if you haven't already.

Agree that Ian McEwan is pretty good - very much enjoyed the one set in Cold War Berlin, can't remember the title. The film of "The Cement Garden" isn't bad.

Best modern writers in my opinion are Michel Hollebecque (sp.?) and Gore Vidal. Which I suppose exposes me as a low- to middle- brow who likes books about ,or at least involving, perverse sex..

[Petr]

And here I was thinking for a split second that perhaps Petr had the inquisitiveness to venture outside of the narrow field of Biblical exegesis and required class readings and sample some of what modern literature has to offer.
Modern literature is mostly crap, why should I bother? IMHO, only people with religious mentality can write meaningful books, atheists are soulless zombies with nothing to say.

(The most impressive book written by an atheist is probably The Brave Soldier Svejk by Jaroslav Hasek.)


Petr

[Geist]

Modern literature is mostly crap, why should I bother? IMHO, only people with religious mentality can write meaningful books, atheists are soulless zombies with nothing to say.

(The most impressive book written by an atheist is probably The Brave Soldier Svejk by Jaroslav Hasek.)


Petr

What about, say James Joyce, as a writer who has written something meaningful, and was an atheist. More important not all literature is supposed to be meaninful, merely beautiful. There are other considerations in life beyond religion.

[Hippias]

Martin Amis is a gifted prose stylist (the descriptive phrases he uses in his novels display a remarkable faculty for language), but I wouldn't say he's the greatest living author on that basis alone. The characters in Amis's novels are unlikeable and nasty (mostly empty, miserable, selfish, sex-obsessed men) and the storylines he concocts aren't particularly gripping or creative. These are two deficits that preclude Amis, IMO, from producing a literary masterpiece.

I think Julian Barnes is the greatest talent in modern literature. "Around the World in 10 1/2 Chapters" is one of the most creative and enjoyable novels produced in modern literature that I have read. I also agree with Timothy that McEwan is a superior talent to Amis.

[Petr]

What about, say James Joyce, as a writer who has written something meaningful, and was an atheist.
Jaroslav Hasek was an exception because he didn't take himself too seriously. An atheist trying to act seriously and meaningfully is a contradiction in terms.

There are other considerations in life beyond religion.
I actually disagree. All our other considerations in life are mere derivatives from our fundamental religious approach.


Petr

[Geist]

MThe characters in Amis's novels are unlikeable and nasty (mostly empty, miserable, selfish, sex-obsessed men) and the storylines he concocts aren't particularly gripping or creative. These are two deficits that preclude Amis, IMO, from producing a literary masterpiece.

Oddly, thats why I like his characters. The more unlikeable the more they seem real to me since the world is comprised, mostly, of such characters. I am especially fond of the names he gives them i.e. John Self, Keith Talent - just to remind you how thinly drawn he intends them to be.

The storylines is perhaps a weakness. Money seemed to me to be nothing more than a meditation on claustrophobia. I hated that little world, but I kept reading despite the fact that there was nothing really to 'find out'.

[Geist]

Jaroslav Hasek was an exception because he didn't take himself too seriously. An atheist trying to act seriously and meaningfully is a contradiction in terms.

If you insist, but that implies that anything with religious backing is not serious. I'm fairly sure the love experienced by the atheist for his wife is just as serious as that of the believer.

I actually disagree. All our other considerations in life are mere derivatives from our fundamental religious approach.


Are financial considerations, which are quite serious, derived from religion?

[Petr]

Are financial considerations which are quite serious derived from religion?
Very easily. It would be a consistent materialist statement to live from hand to mouth like there was no tomorrow and not care about what will happen after your death. As this guy puts it:

The atheist universe is ultimately purposeless. The universe does not care whether humanity prospers or even survives. At any moment human civilization could be wiped out. A cyclical view of time goes hand in hand with a purposeless universe. As noted below, it was Christianity, with its ultimately rational and purposeful universe, that introduced the idea of linear time to the world. [62] Time perspective has tremendous effects on economic progress. Time is money; it is an irreplaceable natural resource. One’s economic class is determined by one’s time perspective. Those entrenched in the lower class have a present-oriented perspective. They are willing to sacrifice a great amount of future goods for more immediate gratification. This time preference for money results in high interest rates: the lower class will go into debt with a high interest loan in order buy their beer and cigarettes. A lender must charge higher interest rates to present-oriented people because of the risk that the borrower will default in his payments before the loan can be paid off. And the present-oriented will not save and invest their money, therefore investment capital in a present-oriented society is in short supply.

In contrast, future-oriented people are more willing to invest in the future. A society dominated by future-oriented people will save and invest so that loans are available in great supply, which drives down the price (interest rate) of loans. And the future-oriented are a lower credit risk; they can be counted on to make payments, which also drives down the interest rate of loans. Over a period of time a society that is future oriented will be more prosperous than a society that is present oriented. [63] But in the purposeless universe of atheism, there is no justification for being future-oriented.

Many non-Christian individuals today are prosperous and future-oriented. But it is only Christianity that provides the justification to be future oriented. With an absolutely rational God ruling the world, there can be an expectation of regularity – in nature, in standards of personal morality, and in civil law. On non-Christian presuppositions, there is no basis for such expectations of regularity. “Eat, drink, and be merry, for tomorrow we die” (cf. 1 Cor. 15:32) is the only logically consistent view for a non-Christian to take. By the (common) grace of God, many non-Christians are not that consistent. But, lacking a rational justification for economic progress, a non-Christian civilization will have the seeds of destruction firmly rooted in it. The arguments and actions of those who favor economically destructive, present-oriented views will not be easily resisted, since in terms of that society’s shared presuppositions, there is no logically valid case against such views. The logical consequences of God-denying irrationalism and disorder will eventually bear fruit in history, making the future a riskier place, both psychologically and empirically, which will cause the price of the future use of money (interest rates) to increase, thereby drying up the availability of investment capital, which eventually stagnates economic growth. There is no guarantee that every individual who becomes a Christian will become wealthy. After all, material wealth is not the ultimate value for Christians; sometimes it must be sacrificed for higher values. But material wealth is a blessing from God, and a self-consciously Christian civilization will naturally become abundantly wealthy. [64]
http://www.christianciv.com/ChristCivEssay_Pt2.htm#Economics


Petr

[Geist]

Very easily. It would be a consistent materialist statement to live from hand to mouth like there was no tomorrow and not care about what will happen after your death. As this guy puts it:


It would also be a consistent materialist statement to live sensible with the aim of passing on material wealth to your children. This is a serious, and non-religious consideration involving non-religious sacrifice.

[funderbunked]

ho ho

Yrs truly is America's Greatest Living Author:

Hell Bottled Up: Chronicles of a Late Propaganda Minister (political autobiography) [written in 1987]
Wisdom's Maw (novel) [written from 1989-1993]
Dogshit Park & other atrocities (collection of short stories/black satire) [written in 1992-93]
All White Noise to the Traveler (collected poetry; 1983-2006)
Essential preMortem: Fugitive Writings of Todd Brendan Fahey (fragments and collected interviews) [ongoing]
A String of Saturdays: The New Southern Romance (novel-in-progress; expected to top out at 800pp.) [to be finished, end-2008]

And I'm only 41.

[Ahmadinebobina]

I'd have to say Yellow Dog was the least readable of Amis' stuff. The best, imo, is still London Fields or Time's Arrow. THe Rachel Papers, Money, Other People, etc are all perfectly entertaining but don't have the same.. depth, i suppose. Eitherway, they lack something. Also, the style of Time's Arrow is absolutely impeccable.
Still, to this day, i wince over the chapters about his teeth in Experience.

As an aside Elizabeth Jane Howard, as well as Kingsley, is quite good. not life changing but rather good, especially in After Julius.

[Ahmadinebobina]

As for Gore Vidal... Kalki was kind of readable but after reading The Two Sisters I couldn't like him. Such a portrait of Anais Nin deserves punishment :(

[Hippias]

Oddly, thats why I like his characters. The more unlikeable the more they seem real to me since the world is comprised, mostly, of such characters.

You must be well-travelled.

Amis may be accurately depicting a world inhabited by people with no higher truth mediating their physical desires, but it does not make for good reading. I also think the postmodern worldview that overhangs his novels is false.

If you want to read a great novel, read Thomas Mann's The Magic Mountain.

[Petr]

It would also be a consistent materialist statement to live sensible with the aim of passing on material wealth to your children.
Why? Why should you care about what happens to people with whom you only share some vague genetic contact after you yourself have died?

And sun is going to die out someday anyways. Why prolong the life of mankind needlessly by multiplying?

(As childless, atheist Muslim poet Abu al-Ma'arri had inscribed upon his gravestone: "My father sinned against me. I have sinned against no-one."


Petr

[Arminius]

Why? Why should you care about what happens to people with whom you only share some vague genetic contact after you yourself have died?

You may want to pass on your belongings and earnings to the most beloved of your family/friends. That is usually children. You're dead, so you won't use them anyway.

And sun is going to die out someday anyways. Why prolong the life of mankind needlessly by multiplying?

That's not realistic. People won't stop doing it.

(As childless, atheist Muslim poet Abu al-Ma'arri had inscribed upon his gravestone: "My father sinned against me. I have sinned against no-one."


An atheist Muslim? :bbbat:
Well, I don't consider having children as sinning against them. That's a terribly cynical view.

[Helios Panoptes]

Why? Why should you care about what happens to people with whom you only share some vague genetic contact after you yourself have died?

And sun is going to die out someday anyways. Why prolong the life of mankind needlessly by multiplying?

(As childless, atheist Muslim poet Abu al-Ma'arri had inscribed upon his gravestone: "My father sinned against me. I have sinned against no-one."


Petr

Atheists are motivated by their emotions, too. They desire to procreate, they take pleasure in helping close relatives, and so on. Such feelings are common to humans, whether they are theists or not.

[Professor John Frink]

Very easily. It would be a consistent materialist statement to live from hand to mouth like there was no tomorrow and not care about what will happen after your death. As this guy puts it:


http://www.christianciv.com/ChristCivEssay_Pt2.htm#Economics


Petr

You don't really believe this for a second, do you?

[Professor John Frink]

Why? Why should you care about what happens to people with whom you only share some vague genetic contact after you yourself have died?

Petr

Because that's the whole point of procreation, such as taking risks for your children even at your own detriment.

[Petr]

You don't really believe this for a second, do you?
Of course I do. Atheists are only deceiving themselves and being intellectually dishonest if they assume that their life or any of their deeds has any purpose.


Petr

[Petr]

Because that's the whole point of procreation, such as taking risks for your children even at your own detriment.
What's your point? Begging the question?


Petr

[Geist]

Amis may be accurately depicting a world inhabited by people with no higher truth mediating their physical desires, but it does not make for good reading. I also think the postmodern worldview that overhangs his novels is false.



This is perhaps a case of different strokes for different folks. I think it makes for wonderful reading, but then again my engagement with the characters is based on a somewhat pessimistic worldview. This may cloud my 'aesthetic' judgement somewhat.

The postmodern worldview is a product of the era he was writing in. Many books exist within a false worldview. I do not think that should be held against them too harshly.

[Basil Fawlty]

Of course I do. Atheists are only deceiving themselves and being intellectually dishonest if they assume that their life or any of their deeds has any purpose.Petr, its called wanting your cake and eating it.

[VAMPIR]

I think he is good, but I would never name him as the Greatest Living Author.