Martin Amis first started spinning in favor of his future obituarists in 2003.
“As you get older you realize that all these things — prizes, reviews, advances, readers — it’s all showbiz, and the real action starts with your obituary,” he said after the release of his book Yellow Dog when prizes, reviews, advances and readers began to turn against him.
He knew how things would play out. After two decades of the literary world quiet quitting Amis, there has been a sudden rehabilitation. In the past week the pages of obituary sections have exploded with a strangely pre-2003 phenomenon — a semi-tolerant fascination with Amis’ personal life and the way it might have bled into his work, and vice versa.
Illustration: Mountain People
There is a nostalgia to these pieces. They strike the reader as missives from another age. What used to be a staple of literary culture — a sort of relaxed curiosity toward the proclivities of writers, their outrageous love affairs, their bad political opinions — is now really only to be found in obituaries sections.
Before 2003, or thereabouts, was a long era in which flawed personalities were routinely sold as part of the package: Writers, artists and rock stars shored up their place in the firmament by revealing or cultivating a complicated life.
Amis, Christopher Hitchens, Philip Larkin: the lothario, the drunken raconteur, the recluse. The image fed the fame, which fed the sales.
Gossip-informed readers enjoyed speculating about the points at which fact met fiction — who had inspired what? Were you really a writer if you did not live like one?
However, things have changed.
We still obsess over difficult artists in prestige films — from a minimum distance of 50 years or so — but for our current crop of writers, painters, musicians and the rest, personality is out of fashion. In fact, those we hold up as cultural icons must now live the blameless apolitical lives of minor royals. Any hint of deviation from the head boy or girl act can inflict terrible harm.
Once you have been shunned by a small group on Twitter, you should start worrying that your publishers will be next.
Few writers with messy lives or offbeat opinions now top bestseller lists. There are no Ernest Hemingways or Ted Hugheses. The “imperfect” and the “complex” are celebrated more loudly than ever, but only in promotional press releases for the novels.
Under the many watchful eyes on social media, the swaggeringly countercultural life is entirely off limits. Most so-called scandals now involve a slipup, or a crack in a careful persona.
Sally Rooney, who lives quietly, once said something political, which was a mistake, and has complained about fame, which did not go down well either.
Lena Dunham, celebrated for her flawed characters, was deserted by fans for revealing various (rather similar) flaws herself. They had never liked her work after all, former devotees started saying. And her characters were unlikeable, too.
There is Taylor Swift, who is suffering a sort of sexually transmitted blowback. Her crime is to date a controversial singer.
And there is celebrity philosopher Agnes Callard, who was recently revealed not only to have left her husband for a student, but to now be living with both of them. In the course of a long profile in the New Yorker, she theorized about the philosophical implications of the love triangle — as a three, “they would all keep talking about philosophy, but with fresh ideas in the mix.”
What will one day delight obituarists disgusted New Yorker readers. She was universally condemned.
It is probably worth asking if the gender of today’s cultural stars has something to do with it. They are no longer overwhelmingly male, particularly in the literary world.
Are we witnessing sexism? The expectation that women, however talented, must always be on their best behavior? This is probably part of it, although men are treated the same way these days.
Will Self, who is alleged to have treated his ex-wife appallingly, has suffered a tarnishing of his literary brand. And there are counterexamples. You think of Iris Murdoch’s adulterous bed hopping, or Doris Lessing abandoning her two children, or Joni Mitchell putting her child up for adoption, and wonder if this would be tolerated among new authors and celebrities today.
There seems to be something broader going on. Where once the talented artist was forgiven almost anything, we are now in a period of overcorrection.
“A man must be a very great genius to make up for being such a loathsome human being,” Martha Gellhorn once said.
We no longer accept the trade-off. In fact, in a surfeit of egalitarianism, we now seem to require geniuses to behave better than the rest of us.
It is good news, of course, that talented monsters are not given the free pass they once were. The period of history in which someone could dodge prison if they were a dab hand with a paintbrush is thankfully over.
However, I worry we have swung into an era in which likeability comes first and talent later. It is not a coincidence that original thinkers have often dodged conformity — moral or otherwise. Not every prodigy is also a prefect.
Martha Gill is a columnist for the Observer.
Concerns that the US might abandon Taiwan are often overstated. While US President Donald Trump’s handling of Ukraine raised unease in Taiwan, it is crucial to recognize that Taiwan is not Ukraine. Under Trump, the US views Ukraine largely as a European problem, whereas the Indo-Pacific region remains its primary geopolitical focus. Taipei holds immense strategic value for Washington and is unlikely to be treated as a bargaining chip in US-China relations. Trump’s vision of “making America great again” would be directly undermined by any move to abandon Taiwan. Despite the rhetoric of “America First,” the Trump administration understands the necessity of
US President Donald Trump’s challenge to domestic American economic-political priorities, and abroad to the global balance of power, are not a threat to the security of Taiwan. Trump’s success can go far to contain the real threat — the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) surge to hegemony — while offering expanded defensive opportunities for Taiwan. In a stunning affirmation of the CCP policy of “forceful reunification,” an obscene euphemism for the invasion of Taiwan and the destruction of its democracy, on March 13, 2024, the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) used Chinese social media platforms to show the first-time linkage of three new
If you had a vision of the future where China did not dominate the global car industry, you can kiss those dreams goodbye. That is because US President Donald Trump’s promised 25 percent tariff on auto imports takes an ax to the only bits of the emerging electric vehicle (EV) supply chain that are not already dominated by Beijing. The biggest losers when the levies take effect this week would be Japan and South Korea. They account for one-third of the cars imported into the US, and as much as two-thirds of those imported from outside North America. (Mexico and Canada, while
The military is conducting its annual Han Kuang exercises in phases. The minister of national defense recently said that this year’s scenarios would simulate defending the nation against possible actions the Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) might take in an invasion of Taiwan, making the threat of a speculated Chinese invasion in 2027 a heated agenda item again. That year, also referred to as the “Davidson window,” is named after then-US Indo-Pacific Command Admiral Philip Davidson, who in 2021 warned that Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) had instructed the PLA to be ready to invade Taiwan by 2027. Xi in 2017
RSS