Talk:Martin Amis
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. | ||||||
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ] | ||||||
 |
This article is supported by the Arts and Entertainment work group. | ||||||
|
|||||||
 |
It is requested that a picture or pictures of this person be included in this article to improve its quality. Note: Wikipedia's non-free content use policy almost never permits the use of non-free images (such as promotional photos, press photos, screenshots, book covers and similar) to merely show what a living person looks like. Efforts should be made to take a free licensed photo during a public appearance, or obtaining a free content release of an existing photo instead. |
The last entry on the MEN story was somewhat economical with the actuality.
By those same figures- released as ploy by a UNITE union rep facing hundreds of non-teaching staff job-losses in the wake of the merger between two Manchester Universities - this paper indirectly showed that Amis really brought in a staggering extra £112,000+ clear profit to the University of Manchester. This figure is the amount of money above that which previous post-holders brought in as his name and reputation had added an extra 50 students to the course at £3000 each.
No mention is made of the extremist politics, the lunatic fringe party membership (or YABs recent anti-semitic remarks) of his 'critics', how come? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.43.2.2 (talk) 11:57, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
What is with that photo of Amis? Vandalism?- InvisibleSun 8/28/05
- Glad to see the photo replaced. InvisibleSun 15:45, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] Style
This article reads more like an Amis fanzine than an encyclopaedia entry. Irrespective of whether it has received a B class rating, paragraphs two and three have no place in a short introduction and show no thought for the kind of information potential readers will be looking for. Plain English might not be appropriate when reviewing Amis's work nor evident in his prose but it should be mandatory pratice in Wikipedia. For reference, have a look at how other editors have written about different prominent individuals, say Dickens, Darwin, Austen etc. 87.80.9.63 (talk) 02:21, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Deletions
Could the anons say what's wrong with the sentences they keep deleting, why they're deleting that he influenced Will Self, and why they keep changing the quote: "terrible compulsive vividness in his style ..." SlimVirgin (talk) 19:26, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Have deleted the word 'devastating' re: critique of Amis' views on Islam. It was shockingly POV, virtually siding with the anti-Amis party. I know it might not be correct Wikipedia etiquette to do so uninvited, but it seemed utterly out of place in this article. 80.192.1.95 22:04, 26 January 2007 (UTC)L-Mac
"The book provoked a literary controversy for his naïve and dilettante approach to the material". POV, surely? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Surfarosa (talk • contribs) .
- Agreed. I added "ostensibly" before it. --zenohockey 21:45, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
Why was this altogether removed? Someone's been deleting with no explanation or basis. 195.134.68.6 10:10, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
This one reads like mart's been writing it himself, or has his publicist editing, and re-editing it, there are titans of writing here at wikipedia who get a much less adulatory treatment that this guy, some just a few paragraphs. Yet this guy somehow manages to be (self) promoted in an encyclopedia, what a huge marketing ploy, yet myself, and other "anons" will not let this stand because this is a wiki project and we should have our say over mart's publicist. Hence my recent deletion of london fields and money being some of britain's most famous published fiction. Source this if you can, which of course you can't because I can here and now come up with a list of other more famous books and authors, that could feel up tens of archived comments pages. Also source how he's supposed to have influence zadie smith, and above all define the "end others" which I ve also removed because I ve read british fiction extensively and I can't see a whole lot of people, hardly any rather, being influenced by mart. The rest of the article need some serious toning down, but I got better things to do, than waste my time on this hack. I just can't tolerate a vastly superior writer such as tim parks getting a couple of sentences in his wiki, and this guy getting some bozos arguing over whether his picture should look straight up, down left, right, center or, excuse my french, up his arse. As far as I am concerned the penis picture that graced the space for mart's picture before it was removed and considered as vandalism, should have sufficed in this article. But I am not trying to force my view down anybody's throat, on the contrary, this publicists note which is what this article has become does. And that's what I find unacceptable. Thanks. 195.134.69.139 06:25, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
To be fair, 195.134.69.139, if you can't tolerate the smallness of Tim Parks's article, then expand it. But not by saying he's a vastly superior writer than Amis, which would be POV... You are entitled to dislike Amis, but this should not be a reason in itself for editing the article.
I have reinstated the point about influencing Will Self and Zadie Smith and have provided sources (which didn't take much googling to find). You can read the linked articles in full, or if you prefer I can quote them here to clarify. Self says: "I've been at pains to deny Martin Amis's influence, but I do think it's there." Smith says: "I like Martin Amis very much, and White Teeth owes a huge debt to London Fields in every direction." At the same time I have removed the mention of Joyce influencing Amis. He has stated the influence of Bellow and Nabokov, but the only comments by Amis on Joyce I can recall were not complimentary. John Self 16:57, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Marriage
The sentence "He lives and writes in London and Uruguay and is married, for the second time, to the writer Isabel Fonseca." is ambiguous; does it mean that he has married Isabel twice or that Isabel is his second wife? Elf | Talk 17:17, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Book title conventions
Book titles should generally be italised, not boldened. Skinnyweed 02:41, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Image
If people don't like the image on the left of the page, we should find one where he isn't looking to the right. Placing an image so that the person is looking away from the text is a no-no, because the reader's eye is known to follow the direction of faces. SlimVirgin (talk) 14:14, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
-
- It doesn't really matter all that much... people are here to read the article, so they're going to. I don't think anyone'll be put off by the fact that he's looking to the right... Barbara Osgood 23:00, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
I think the picture does justice to both the article and to Mart. To the article because at it's current condition is best looked away from, and to Mart becauses it perfectly demonstrates his evasiveness and vain glory. So I personally don't have a problem with that. And considering that the last picture we had was what vandal kept editing in, a picture of a rather miniscule and flacid penis, this one does far more justice to him as it undoubtedly bears much closer resemblance to Mr. Amis on a physical, facial that is, level. Which one of the two is closer to the truth on a symbolic level is however very debatable. In any case it won't be very easy to find a frontal picture of the writer, as most of his publicity shots are very artsy stuff, profoundly so. So this one suffices. 195.134.68.6 10:05, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] POVS, Publicity Statements, and Biases.
"Although the book did not sell as well as expected, it did receive decent acclaim in the literary press."
This is as pov as it gets, because the book DID NOT, receive decent acclaim, nor in the literary press, nor in the wider press, it got very negative reviews, too bad there's not a "rotten tomatoes" style website to collect literary reviews, but the book got trashed many times around for it's stale prose, for being unimaginative etc. etc.
Even the way it's mentioned here that some lesser writer was solely responsible for the negative reaction is very misleading.
"He is the author of some of Britain's best-known modern literature,"
This also is very pov, has a survey been conducted, or are we getting this by the publicist's office as well and Mart's uruguayian internet provider, most of his books at amazon have got the lowest number of reviews and sales figures amongst british writers, from what I have read he also ranks amongst the least translated british authors abroad, with minimal reception in foreign countries.
"He also wrote the screenplay for the film Saturn 3."
Why are the successes made to look grandiosed and the failures, such as the reception to the film not even mentioned? "The film was widely panned by reviewers as derivative, mediocre and lacking in suspense." According to the wikipedia page on the film. Looks like mart's been a bad boy and has been editing things out...
"Time's arrow drew notice both for its unusual technique — time runs backwards during the entire novel, down to the actual dialogue being spoken backwards — as well as for its topic."
Another misleading statement, this unusual technique, had already been used very successfully too, by dame muriel spark in the driver's seat, and kurt vonegaut in slaughterhouse five amonst others.
"In 2002, Amis published Koba the Dread, a book about the crimes of Stalinism and the intellectual left."
First of all the intellectual left has got to go, of course in a post cold war era with most of these issues already covered from every possible side by historians and the press, Amis out of place book has a distinct unpleasant smell of propaganda and a closet attack on the intellectual left at large who for some very peculiar reason have to apologise for the behaviours of Stalin, while the conservative Amis is of course completely unrelated and unapologetic to the various capitalist genocides and massacres, courtesy of the U.S. and British Imperialism. Consequently, the only crimes commited by the intellectual left are those that Mart in a typical sly way tries to assign to them, by virtue of association, communism=Stalin=left intellectuals, but of course he wouldn't hold arch capitalist conservative and jewish propagandist Saul Bellow responsible for the various genocides fo the israelis, or the U.S. at large in places such as Nicaragua, Honduras, El Salvador, Brazil, Venezuala... But of course say Sartre is responsible for crimes... Is this more laughable than pathetic you be the judge... Moreover this book was time again ridiculed for Amis lack of scholarship and appropriate knowledge of the subject area.
Why is there no mention that all his books since the information have consistently failed to sell well despite the perenial press coverage, and the agressive marketing campaigns, and have for the most part received negative, or even downright dismissive or ridiculing reviews by literary critics and the general public?
I ll let these comments stand with no further alterations, and as soon as this has rippened I ll move on to edit accordingly. Hopefully, mart's manager the coyte, the one footed rabbit or whatever his animal monicker is won't expurgate this page again.
195.134.68.6 09:56, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
User 195.134.68.6: Some of your points are valid but others would result in as much POV as the ones you complain of.
1. I would agree that to say Yellow Dog received 'decent acclaim' in the literary press is misleading. However it did not receive uniformly negative reviews. For example The Guardian and Observer raved about it. The Telegraph recommended it as one of the best summer paperbacks of 2004. There were also, as you point out, several highly negative reviews and also some lukewarm ones. It might be better and more balanced then to say "The book did not sell as well as expected and received mixed reviews, some considering Amis a spent force, with others hailing the book as a return to form." Having said that, I have no idea how it sold or what the expectations for its sales were, so I'm unsure about the accuracy of the first half of that sentence.
2. I have no idea why Saturn 3 is mentioned at all, with or without critical response, as it's hardly a significant part of his renown. However the films that were made from The Rachel Papers and Dead Babies are both accurately listed as commercial failures.
3. Time's Arrow was indeed noted for its unusual technique, so it would be wrong to remove that. Of course the backward narrative has been used before, but it's still far from usual: hence 'unusual.' By the way the examples you give are bad ones. Slaughterhouse-Five uses a backward narrative only for a small part of the whole, and The Driver's Seat doesn't go backwards at all. Spark did flit about temporally in other novels, such as The Prime of Miss Jean Brodie and The Girls of Slender Means, but never recounting an entire novel in reverse time as with Time's Arrow. The comparison is invalid.
4. Koba the Dread. The opening description "about Stalin's crimes and the intellectual left" is simply an accurate description of the subject matter of the book. The book (as you rightly say) was also criticised on publication, and that has been addressed in the body of the article. The rest of your comments on this are irrelevant and uninformed: if you have read the book, or even the blurb, you would know that Amis does not seek to hold the intellectual left 'responsible' for Stalin's crimes. In any event this is not the place to discuss our opinions on the book or on Amis. It is supposed to be a factual encyclopaedia entry. Admittedly your description of Amis as 'conservative' and as supportive of US foreign policy did provide me with some temporary amusement.
5. The reason why there is no mention of poor sales and critical mauling for 'all his books since The Information' is that it would not be accurate. You can visit The Martin Amis Web (linked in the main article) for reviews and you will see that reviews of Night Train (1997) were mixed with some highly positive and others highly negative, and that reviews of Experience (2000) were mostly positive, as they were too for Heavy Water (1998). Yellow Dog (2003) and Koba the Dread (2002) we have already discussed. I have no information on the sales of any of his books - if you do, please let us know - though Experience and Night Train at least have gone through several printings so must have sold reasonably well.
6. Your suggestion that Andrew Wylie or Amis himself are editing this page is laughable. Do you really think they've as little to do as you and I have?
Finally, not in relation to 195.134.68.6's comments but in relation to the main article: it is wrong to suggest that the spat with Julian Barnes may have been the inspiration for The Information. As mentioned in the article, Amis fell out with Barnes after dumping Barnes's wife Pat Kavanagh as his agent, and taking up with Andrew Wylie. This was for the sale of The Information. So it can't have inspired the book as it was already written at that point. John Self 14:59, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
John Self,
I ll go along with your numbering of the points I 've made, although you do miss quite a few.
1. If your sources of the reviews are, as you mention further down, "the martin amis web", then I am sure them boys there miss out on quite a few of the negative ones. That said, amazon is always a good way to gauge a books sales, have a look then.
2. Of course Saturn Five should be mentioned as part of Mart's oeuvre (sp?), why shouldn't it, because it was a huge flop? Because I bet the stuff writers of almost any sitcom currently on air in the states could come up with far superior material.
3. Granted the term unusual, does not per se signify original, but it does have that connotation too. I ll have to get my muriel spark books out, but I was pretty sure driver's seat used the same ploy, maybe I am mistaken, but she did use it elsewhere.
4. I ll admit to only reading the blurb and browsing through, you can't hold me responsible after reading left right and center (literally) of the political literature on the issues to not take mart's "scholarly" approach to read it end to end. The opening description that you quote, associates, even doing so unwittingly, the intellectual left and Stalin's "crimes", and of course it's not the place to discuss the merits of the book. Glad to be amusing to you though, but Mart beside whatever liberal/leftift/whatever facade is an arch conservative with an agenda, besides you gotta be a moron to take up Stalin's ad nauseum documented crimes otherwise, or out to serve your masters which is what Mart's doing, so keep laughing, I am sure Mart's doing so too, at your expense.
5. I appreciate it's hard to gauge how well a book sells, surely though you can't expect me to believe that a few thousands of books sold, which is what a few editions is, or "the martin amis web" are good indicators in any way.
6. Glad you are laughing at my suggestion that willie (maybe the penis pic removed was his, it's something we should have considered before removing it for vandalism) or Mart are editing this page. You seem pretty intelligent, so I guess you do have other better things currently going in your life, and as you can see, I am not exactly an active member of wikipedia, taking two months to reply. And I am very sure willie nillie and mart, don't give a toss and are so way above editing to their favour, and their marketing schemes, what is probably the internets foremost outlet for encyclepedic knowledge, that is wikipedia. Please don't take offence here, but wake up and smell the coffee that's what publicists actually do, it's their job. I don't currently have the link but there was a very interesting article on the ny time I think recounting how the vast majority of writers are actually writing and rewriting positive reviews of their books at amazon.com, and dissing their perceived competion.
Now let's check some of them paraguayan ip addresses, right Mart? 195.134.69.139 06:55, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your response, 195.134.69.139. Actually you took just two days to reply; it was me who took two months.
The reason I didn't address all your points was because, as I intimated in my opening comment, I agree with some of them. For example that it's POV to say "He is the author of some of Britain's best-known modern literature." Having said that, I do think there needs to be some statement of acknowledgement that he's among the better known literary novelists in the UK, particularly so when you consider that his public profile almost certainly outstrips his sales. For example, he almost certainly doesn't sell as well as contemporaries like Ian McEwan or William Boyd, but he seems to maintain an equal or better level of renown. That must be worth mentioning.
I believe The Martin Amis Web does in fact include positive and negative reviews, but that's not really the point. I simply wanted to clarify that Yellow Dog did receive some positive reviews (and acknowledged that it also got many negative reviews). In other words, although I agreed it was misleading to say "it received decent acclaim in the literary press," it would be equally misleading to suggest it didn't receive any acclaim. Anyway I have changed the comment in the main article to something which I think is more balanced.
Re Koba the Dread - we've agreed it's not a very good book, and I say that as someone who ploughed through it. That was also widely accepted in the press and is reflected in the main article. The book however is about the intellectual left's response to Stalin's crimes, which is why the description applied to it remains valid. If the book did claim the intellectual left was responsible for Stalin's crimes, then it would be accurate to say that it did in the description in the main article. In other words just because you disagree with a statement, doesn't mean it should be reported inaccurately. I don't know what 'masters' you say Amis is serving by the way. Remember the policy about making comments on living people.
Sales we are agreed are impossible to comment on without access to Nielsen Bookscan or official sales figures or similar.
I dunno, Little Mart just doesn't strike me as the internet-surfing type. (Does he really live in Paraguay, even some of the time, by the way?) And I don't think he particularly cares what we think of him: he's made his money, let's face it. I doubt Wikipedia has any effect on his sales one way or the other anyway. John Self 16:34, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
John,
Thanks for the well balanced reply, I think we are reaching a concensus here towards a more representative and less adulatory article, in the high standards of wikipedia.
I agree that his level of reknown and public visibility, whether deserved or not, whether a product of good prose or relentless marketing and good connections, should be aknowledged in the article, because it is a fact. That is a very distinct thing from claiming he is one of "british masters" currently at work or any other adulatory similar claim made during the evolution of this article. Although it is indeed hard for any writer to be aknowled in his days as a literary giant of sorts, some have been, with a more or less united opinion favouring that view. This is not the case with Amis who gets considerable and constant backing from certain quarters as a sui generis, but who also has very considerable critisism against him by several others who do not just view him as not so good, but a bad or non artist per se.
Point well take with the yellow dog book as well as with Koba the Dread. I am aware of wikipedia policy towards living persons. Although it's a bit baffling to me why we should be more careful on our comments towards them, who in any case have a public persona and for whom there's ample sources of news and media for the reader to form an opinion, whereas deceised persons are the ones we should be more sensitive towards as they are neither here to defend their legacy, and the sources of information fade with time. Regardless of that, I of course adhere to this rule as I wish to partake in the wikipedia project. I will not comment any further on which people stand to benefit from a prolonged and sustained association of the intellectual left and those of progressive political opinions with Stalin's deeds, it was however worth noting in the talk pages (which for me are sometimes far more illuminating for an article in wikipedia) that a dated, unscholarly account of such an event, seems highly suspicious to me. Ideological wars are waged everyday so it's worth taking a moment to ponder why would one choose to wage them from on side or the other according to their views and backing they get.
I wasn't aware of the Nielsen bookscan, so I ll look this up.
Lol, it's actually Uruguay, my bad, I repeated this incorrectly, and yes according to an interview of his I read he does live there quite a few months of the year, as the wifey is from there. Like I said for a person so obviously concious of his public persona, I wouldn't put it past him to try to put his views across the internet, as so many writers do. Like I also said next time you go to amazon for a book review bare in mind that some of these guys might be bashing each other back and forth for the benefit of the unaware reader... lol... the internet age... it's been documented. 62.74.5.232 11:45, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Your IP address has changed so I'll just have to refer to you as 'Mr X'. (I wish I knew how to indent text by the way to make these exchanges clearer to distinguish.) I think the policy on living persons is purely from the point of view of Wikipedia protecting itself from legal action. Because it's an encyclopaedia, things presented here (can) have the authority of fact, so if it's not accurate and even defamatory then they could be in difficulties libel-wise. Of course most public figures wouldn't care but then some are highly litigious.
Yes I know all about the abuse of Amazon, and I've been in the vanguard of trying to nobble certain self-published authors' attempts to promote their dubious wares that way. Generally when I see a five-star Amazon review, I click on "see my other reviews" and if the reviewer has only posted one, I just presume it's by the author or a representative and ignore it...
By the way you may have missed my comments above in the 'Deleted' section. I have reinstated a couple of names with sources. Over and out. John Self 13:08, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Apologies if this is not the correct place to notate errors but the author has made a mistake when stating ;
"Born in Oxford, England, Martin was the middle of three children, with an older brother, Philip, and a younger sister, Sally. He attended a number of different schools in the 1950s and 1960s including Swansea Grammar School. The acclaim that followed Kingsley's first novel Lucky Jim sent the Amises to Princeton, New Jersey, where Kingsley lectured. This was Amis's introduction to the United States."
This is fact refers to Kingsley Amis ,Martins father. Martin Amis went to the city of london school. The above comes from Kingsley Amis's biography.
HTH
Jonathan Chapman —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.57.246.11 (talk) 10:31, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] A nit rims ma
http://www.wordsmith.org/anagram/ Pliny 23:56, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] For the ignorant:
What is the correct pronunciation of this author's last name? Can somebody spell it out phonetically? Alca911 18:54, 29 December 2006 (UTC)Alca911
82.195.186.220 18:57, 5 January 2007 (UTC) Hi, Another query for the ignorant. Greg (author?)- why is Martin Amis classified as an English Writer despite being born and at least partly educated in Wales ? Is this his own stated preference? Any clarification greatly appreciated ? Thanks James (spincity33@hotmail.com) 18:56 5th January 2007 82.195.186.220 18:57, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Tibor Fischer
How nice it is to read something written by Tibor Fischer. I haven't read anything by him since Under the Frog. Good to see he can still put pen to paper. --Dilaudid 22:50, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
- Oh dear. I just read the review of Tibor's last book (published 4 years ago) in the washington post... "my right hand ... wants to type something ... Evokes Amis in the style of Martin with the Amis clearly influenced by following in the Amis of Martin bloody Amis help ow Amis . . ." Could this have led to the tiny element of sour grapes I think I see in Tibor's "masturbating uncle" quote? --Dilaudid 22:54, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Martin Amis/Great Live Interview
Hello Wiki's. I've been doing some reasearch on certain writers and found a wonderful link for Martin Amis. It is a live interview where he talks about his latest novel and the journey of his 30 year writing career. I've attached the link and wanted some of you to check it out for post approval. I think it's rare and wonderful. http://www.victorialautman.com/ontherecord.shtml#amis Corkyshag (talk) 20:10, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Incorrect Nationality
His nationality should be listed as "British" rather than "English" in the information panel
- ha ha, or perhaps Ukanian. Anyway, here's an interesting review of The Second Plane in today's New York Times. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 06:32, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Possible vandalism, breach of NPOV
User:Remform has regularly changed this article as well as the one on Terry Eagleton to include emotive words such as "disgraceful", "lumpen" to describe Eagleton and his allegations about Amis senior and Amis junior. It seems to me that this is a clear breach of NPOV. What do other users think? Since Remform seems to be a new user I don't wish to accuse him of vandalism. I'm going to leave a message on his talk page. --Mia-etol (talk) 08:50, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
In response to these comments - how do you explain the biography of a writer featuring a polemic dominated by substantial negative comments such as this by Eagleton? And why only use this persons negatively biased comments to condemn a few views whilst the body of Amis's work is beyond reproach? This forum is clearly NOT a FREE SPEECH medium. When censorious types are allowed to unabashedly bias the feel of a writers work by defending space to communist rabble rousers rather than to the actual author being critiqued, the nature of this site becomes questionable.
The comments added merely highlighted this point - and they were swiftly removed to reinforce the point.
This censorship is disgraceful, cowardly and pederastic claptrap at its worst. RemformRemform (talk) 09:29, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a blog. If you want to add more writers in support of Amis feel free to do so. Just don't add your own personal comments. --Mia-etol (talk) 10:03, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
No encyclopedia worth the name dedicates large portions of its entries to the critics of those being critiqued. User:Mia-etol simply defends the shoddy and two-ply disposable views of disgraced Eagleton, and thereby alludes to the collusion in this bias. It seems that it is fine to defend the communistic and specious claptrap of Eagletons, but opposing these views is wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Remform (talk • contribs) 08:57, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
