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.
In their New York Times bestseller How Democracies Die, Harvard political scientists Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt said that democracies today “may die at the hands not of generals but of elected leaders. Many government efforts to subvert democracy are ‘legal,’ in the sense that they are approved by the legislature or accepted by the courts. They may even be portrayed as efforts to improve democracy — making the judiciary more efficient, combating corruption, or cleaning up the electoral process.” Moreover, the two authors observe that those who denounce such legal threats to democracy are often “dismissed as exaggerating or
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) caucus in the Legislative Yuan has made an internal decision to freeze NT$1.8 billion (US$54.7 million) of the indigenous submarine project’s NT$2 billion budget. This means that up to 90 percent of the budget cannot be utilized. It would only be accessible if the legislature agrees to lift the freeze sometime in the future. However, for Taiwan to construct its own submarines, it must rely on foreign support for several key pieces of equipment and technology. These foreign supporters would also be forced to endure significant pressure, infiltration and influence from Beijing. In other words,
“I compare the Communist Party to my mother,” sings a student at a boarding school in a Tibetan region of China’s Qinghai province. “If faith has a color,” others at a different school sing, “it would surely be Chinese red.” In a major story for the New York Times this month, Chris Buckley wrote about the forced placement of hundreds of thousands of Tibetan children in boarding schools, where many suffer physical and psychological abuse. Separating these children from their families, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) aims to substitute itself for their parents and for their religion. Buckley’s reporting is
Last week, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), together holding more than half of the legislative seats, cut about NT$94 billion (US$2.85 billion) from the yearly budget. The cuts include 60 percent of the government’s advertising budget, 10 percent of administrative expenses, 3 percent of the military budget, and 60 percent of the international travel, overseas education and training allowances. In addition, the two parties have proposed freezing the budgets of many ministries and departments, including NT$1.8 billion from the Ministry of National Defense’s Indigenous Defense Submarine program — 90 percent of the program’s proposed
RSS