Angus Jung wrote: The 80s damage really clings to the books he wrote in those years.

Chapter Two wrote:What do you mean, Angus? I'm missing something here.

Unless you are really, really old, it will be tough to explain.

If you aren't really, really old and you like his books, don't worry about it.

Angus Jung wrote:

Angus Jung wrote: The 80s damage really clings to the books he wrote in those years.

Chapter Two wrote:What do you mean, Angus? I'm missing something here.

Unless you are really, really old, it will be tough to explain.

If you aren't really, really old and you like his books, don't worry about it.

I'm 33. What are you on about? Do you mean he got damaged in the eighties or the eighties were generally damaging, politically? I can see the latter would make sense and if that's what you mean, say so, I'd like to know. Please.

Chapter Two wrote:

Angus Jung wrote:

Angus Jung wrote: The 80s damage really clings to the books he wrote in those years.

Chapter Two wrote:What do you mean, Angus? I'm missing something here.

Unless you are really, really old, it will be tough to explain.

If you aren't really, really old and you like his books, don't worry about it.

I'm 33. What are you on about?

I think it'd be better just to quote our leader:

steve wrote:Man, the 80's sucked hog cock.

Hmmmm...

has anyone read Other People?

I finished it last night. A beautifully written book; nice when you can feel someone really enjoying themselves with language.

But the end... the end has done my head in. The only thing I can put it to is Neitszche's eternal recurrence idea, although I can't believe he's just doing that. This is a headfuck of an ending. Phooph.

Chapter Two wrote:This is a headfuck of an ending. Phooph.

FOR THE LOVE OF GOD, PLEASE EXPLAIN THE ENDING! Your comments imply that you reached pretty much the same conclusion that I did, but I couldn't believe the end was that weak -- phrases like "painted into a corner" and "easy way out" came to mind.

A difficult Crap/Not Crap! I'll say Not Crap by a razor-thin margin. Dude can write his ASS off in terms of diction and style and wit, but he owes a huge amount to Saul Bellow, Joseph Heller, and others, verging on actual plagiarism in at least two instances that I know of; his novels' endings often suck (Money was maybe the most enjoyable read of my life until the end, when I wanted to kick Mr Amis very hard); those plot / narrative gimmicks sometimes seem gratuitous or clumsy to me; and worst of all he strains for moral and intellectual weight like nobody I've ever seen, even though his gifts are so clearly for fantastically entertaining prose, some sharp insights here and there, AND NOT A LOT ELSE. And Yellow Dog was crap. Still, even at his most annoying, his writing is never less than a pleasure to read.

Has anyone read his short story in the current New Yorker, written from the point of view of one of the 9/11 hijackers? I probably will even though I expect it contains everything that irritates me about his stuff.

His memoir, Experience, is really good, and his father Kingsley Amis's first novel, Lucky Jim, is hilarious.

I love Martin Amis when he's on, but he's dropped a few turds. I have a first edition of Yellow Dog that I will send out CHEAP.

I thought London Fields was great. I enjoyed the ride much more than the destination. Same with Time's Arrow. You'd have to be pretty thick to not figure out where it was going, but it was clever enough to keep me engaged. Not the first "back to front" story, but the best.

I absolutely love his Autobiography. His dad, Kingsley, was an amazing author, and a lot more accessable. It was interesting to see Kingsley as the man who was possibly a little less up his own ass than Martin - opposite of how it usually is.

-A

Martin Amis contributed to writing this. What the hell?

Ha HA! I don't think I'm gonna try to track it down, but...wacky! I can imagine him doing it early in his career for a giggle and possibly some $.

I've never seen the films of The Rachel Papers and Dead Babies -- I have such vivid mental pictures of what goes on in both that I actually don't want to, and the movies apparently aren't that good anyway -- but I am very curious about & interested in the David Cronenberg film based on London Fields that is apparently now in production. Martin Amis is writing the screenplay himself.

Not so fast. From an interview with Cronenberg in March this year:

"[London Fields] is still a possibility. There is a script that Martin Amis wrote with Roberta Hanley of his novel, and it's a project I'm interested in. It's sort of on a back burner, I would say. It's about third in line."

I finished London Fields last night. In fact for the last few days I’ve been rushing home from work to read it. I must admit that I had an inkling how it would end, but the last few chapters were done perfectly. A lesser writer would have strung it out a lot more. Funny, there’s actually a passage where the writer/narrator is imagining the story to be a film, and wondering who would play the characters. I think he makes a blindingly obvious choice of Hugh Grant as Guy. No idea who the others would be best played by though. Ray Winstone’s too old. I think it was made for Cronenberg. I can so imagine in my head the way he would do the ending. One of the places where Guy and Nicola go for walks was one of the places I would go to get my head together in the last summer before I left London, the woods that Trent Country Park leads to, just north of Barnet.

I’m glad it’s over. Excellent book.