Amis and Gays--2

Topic:	Amis & Homosexuality
Conf:	Martin Amis Discussion Web
From:	Tod F babiesdead@hotmail.com
Date:	Thursday, June 28, 2001 09:00 AM

On 6/28/2001 1:26:51 AM, masma wrote:

<<Bilge delivers the evidence - I’m sure you’ll agree that Bellow’s statement in particular is right down there with the very worst expressions of human hatefulness and deeply connected with the Judaism of his forefathers:

When *Playboy* magazine asks Saul Bellow: "What do you make of the AIDS epidemic?" And Saul Bellow's reply is: "If I believed in God, I would say that this is God's way of restoring the seriousness to sexual connections." 

The truly remarkable thing about this reply is that Amis has, through a first person narrative, made an uncannily similar observation. In Money  (1984 - the date is significant ) the narrator, after alluding to the
carryings on at “ The Water Closet ” , “ The Spike “, “The Mother Load ” and (I paraphrase from memory ):

“ the other really heavy gay joints of Manhattan where the average patron leaves his sock in one cab but returns in two and has, by any reasonable measure, a really bad time. Fielding tells me that there is some nasty new disease afoot. Mother nature, always a champion of monogamy, is looking on at all this crossing her arms and tut-tutting, she just will not stand for it. ”

Make the easy substitution of “ mother nature” for Bellow’s not-believed-in God and the comity of the minds of Amis and Bellow on this subject is crystal clear.>>

Leaving aside the point that John Self is not intended to be Amis' alter ego in Money, I'll address the more general issue.

You seem to be suggesting that a lack of sympathy towards the victims of AIDS is prima facie evidence of homophobia. Well it isn't. Both these comments cited are intended to suggest that it is promiscuity per se which 'nature'/'God' is intending to eradicate.

Newsflash - heterosexuals can be promiscuous as well. And there's more evidence of unthinking homophobia in the sloppy correlation between AIDS and gays and between promiscuity and gays than is evident in the thinking of Amis or Bellow from the examples here cited.

Brian

Topic:	Amis & Homosexuality
Conf:	Martin Amis Discussion Web
From:	DaveL dalch@cup.uni-muenchen.de
Date:	Thursday, June 28, 2001 09:51 AM

I am with Brian on this one, especially on his first point - "the views expressed herein are not necessarily those of the author" (perhaps the novels need a confidentiality notice/disclaimer, no, that might irritate some folk even further...), pretty obvious really.

As for the portrayal of homosexuals in Amis's work, this is the same argument feminists use to claim he is a misogynist. This argument holds very well if you only examine the group you are interested in proving he hates, e.g. women or homosexuals. If you look at all the characters in his books you'll probably find that not many are portrayed in a very kind light (e.g. it is easy to say "oh, misogynist - look at Nicola Six", but are men really getting a fair deal out of Keith and Guy?).

If anything, the homophobe/misogynist is just a subset - if Amis is going to have this type of accusation levelled at him, surely it should be one of misanthropy???

Then again, the one time I saw him in the flesh, at a reading/Q&A session, he was very keen to stress his 110% hetero-ness at every opportunity. I guess some people might construe that as homophobia.

Dave

 

Topic:	Amis & Homosexuality
Conf:	Martin Amis Discussion Web
From:	bronteboy sbrockwell@500cc.com
Date:	Thursday, June 28, 2001 10:41 PM

Brian's response that Amis is not Self and therefore it is impermissible to suggest that a first person narrative stream might be Amis's view as well (But see my third extract of Brian's post below). Further :

"You seem to be suggesting that a lack of sympathy
towards the victims of AIDS is prima facie evidence of
homophobia. Well it isn't."

First, I didn't make any such suggestion, it was Bill J that did in relation to Saul Bellow. Secondly, let me state that so-called "homophobia", by reason of its recent invention as term of abuse intended to gag discussion of any aspect of homosexuality deemed unsympathetic, is a word that has no place in my lexicon. Thirdly, point to a single instance where a public expression of lack of sympathy for those sexually infected with HIV has not been greeted with shrieks and howls of
denunciation with the usual term.

" Both these comments cited are intended to suggest that it is promiscuity per se which 'nature'/'God' is intending to eradicate."

Per se? I think not. The intention of the "comments" can be gleaned from the context in which they were made. Both were specifically directed at the male homosexual community in which the epidemic was occurring.

" Newsflash - heterosexuals can be promiscuous as well.
And there's more evidence of unthinking homophobia in the sloppy correlation between AIDS and gays and
between promiscuity and gays than is evident in the
thinking of Amis [ surely he means Amis's character John Self?] Bellow from the examples here cited."

If Brian is seriously asserting (which I doubt - this is an oft repeated canard ) that promiscuity in the male homosexual community is in any way comparable with that found in heterosexual life, I suggest he reads either of the biographies of Michel Foucault or any text of any kind dealing with the bars, steambaths, clubs and " beats" of San Francisco, New York, LA, Sydney, Berlin, etc. Perhaps if he doesn't know anybody who is a member of that community he should make the acquaintance of a few and, once a level of candour has been established, ask them about their sex lives. Get them to estimate the number of partners they've had. Secondly to assert that a correlation between male homosexuality, promiscuity and AIDS is " sloppy " defies reality. In the Western World active homosexual men still constitute the overwhelming majority of HIV/AIDS cases. Does Brian believe that this, or the fact that AIDS was first identified and rapidly spread in the homosexual community, is purely coincidental. What does Brian imagine the principal means of transmission of the virus to be ?

 

Topic:	Amis & Homosexuality
Conf:	Martin Amis Discussion Web
From:	bronteboy sbrockwell@500cc.com
Date:	Thursday, June 28, 2001 11:11 PM

Dave responds:

“ As for the portrayal of homosexuals in Amis's work, this is the same argument feminists use to claim he is a misogynist."

There are similarities but they are superficial ones for the following reason. There is a spectrum of female characters in Amis ranging from Nicola and Amy Hide at one end ranging through all the women in e.g. Dead Babies with Hope, Gina and Martina Twain at the other end. There is no such spectrum for male homosexuals as I endeavoured to make clear.

" This argument holds very well if you only examine the group you are interested in proving he hates, e.g. women or homosexuals. If you look at all the characters in his books you'll probably find that not many are portrayed in a very kind light (e.g. it is easy to say "oh, misogynist - look at Nicola Six", but are men really getting a fair deal out of Keith and Guy?).”

I don't believe that Amis "hates" homosexuals and it was not my intention to try to "prove" it. And he is certainly not a misogynist - as Richard Tull says, your nuts radar tells you when you've encountered the genuine article. Curiously, the sole lesbian I recall in MA's fiction - the scriptwriter in Money - came up quite well. Despite being subjected to Self's oafish attempt at seduction/ sexual assault she still has the humanity to warn him, at a point where it would save Self from ruin, that Fielding is taking him for a ride. He's too drunk to haul it in.

But what of MA's hetero men? Again there is a spectrum across which we find psychopaths ( Keith, Steve Cousins), villains, conceited fools, boors, dupes, dummies, etc, and the cast is pretty skewed towards these types, but (with the exception of the psychopaths) there is always a degree of authorial empathy generated for them particularly Guy, Richard Tull. Even John Self.

Topic:	Amis & Homosexuality
Conf:	Martin Amis Discussion Web
From:	Tod F babiesdead@hotmail.com
Date:	Friday, June 29, 2001 09:26 AM

I note that the board is displaying some antipathy toward either my quoting style or the prose contained within it by not reproducing the points I'm addressing in full. I'll try again.

[[Brian's responds that Amis is not Self and therefore it is impermissible to suggest that a first person narrative stream might be Amis's view as well (But see my third extract of Brian's post below).]]
Your defensiveness is telling. I didn't say that it is impermissible to do so. I was merely pointing out that you failed entirely to acknowledge the possibility of the distinction.

[[Further :

" You seem to be suggesting that a lack of sympathy
towards the victims of AIDS is prima facie evidence of homophobia. Well it isn't."

First, I didn't make any such suggestion, it was Bill J that did in relation to Saul Bellow. ]]
The tone and context implied approval. But perhaps that was just me.

[[Secondly, let me state that so-called "homophobia", by reason of its recent invention as term of abuse intended to gag discussion of any aspect of homosexuality deemed unsympathetic, is a word that has no place in my lexicon. ]]

Nor indeed is there much apparent room for "brevity" in that tome. "Homophobia" is the best term we have to concisely refer to a certain mindset on homosexuality. Although bearing in mind the meandering *concisophobic* tone of your initial argument I am hardly surprised that you reject it. Perhaps you also inhabit a world of perambulators, wellingtons and influenza while the rest of us spew their vulgar contractions for the crass purpose of saving time. Would it be possible for you to indulge those of us with MTV-concentration spans and fast-food-queue patience and surmise your point on Amis in a sentence?

(Personally I'd make a case for "homosceptic" being oft-times more appostite than "homophobia" but until it catches on I and the rest of the great-unwashed will just make do.)

[[Thirdly, point to a single instance where a public expression of lack of sympathy for those sexually infected with HIV has not been greeted with shrieks and howls of denunciation with the usual term.]]
The "everybody else is doing it so why can't I?" line of reasoning. Answer: you can, but you'll get called on it. Just as anyone else would if they did it within my range of perception.

[[" Both these comments cited are intended to suggest that it is promiscuity per se which 'nature'/'God' is intending to eradicate."

Per se? I think not. The intention of the "comments" can be gleaned from the context in which they were made. Both were specifically directed at the male homosexual community in which the epidemic was occurring. ]]
No "gay" context was provided for the Bellow remark. For the Amis one the context can be finely gleaned from the line, "Mother nature, always a champion of monogamy". That's the context: pro-monogomy, anti-promiscuity. Like I said.

[[If Brian is seriously asserting (which I doubt - this is an oft repeated canard ) that promiscuity in the male homosexual community is in any way comparable with that found in heterosexual life, I suggest he reads either of the biographies of Michel Foucault or any text of any kind dealing with the bars, steambaths, clubs and " beats" of San Francisco, New York, LA, Sydney, Berlin, etc. Perhaps if he doesn't know anybody who is a member of that community he should make the acquaintance of a few and, once a level of candour has been established, ask them about their sex lives. Get them to estimate the number of partners they've had. ]]
I'm not asserting it either seriously, frivolously, rambunctuously, manically or in any manner whatsoever. I'm not asserting it at all. Yes, gay men are more promiscuous. But that doesn't mean that promiscuity = gay. Gay people are disproportionately involved in the fashion industry. But fashion does not = gay. So if I attack fashion, I'm not attacking homosexuality. And if I attack promiscuity I'm not attacking homosexuality. The distinction is there to be grasped (and if you knew how much and how well I know many gay people, you'd be embarrassed at trying to obscure it with your hackneyed second-hand shopping-list of wannabe-hip homo-referentia.)

[[Secondly to assert that a correlation between male homosexuality, promiscuity and AIDS is " sloppy " defies reality. In the Western World active homosexual men still constitute the overwhelming majority of HIV/AIDS cases. Does Brian believe that this, or the fact that AIDS was first identified and rapidly spread in the homosexual community, is purely coincidental]]

Back to the fashion-gay thing. There is a difference between *some* correlation and the absolute correlation which you have willed yourself into detecting.

<<. What does Brian imagine the principal means of transmission of the virus to be ? 
Let's leave this as an essay question for the readers, who will no doubt join you avidly in your frenzied anticipation of the inner-most workings of my imagination. Perhaps I'll offer a suitable prize for the candidate who gets nearest the mark.

Brian