« Left-Right Pirouette | Main | But Is It Art? »

October 10, 2007

Comments

DaninVan

Mere suggestion or "plenty of evidence" notwithstanding, none was offered.
G*d forbid we should take Amis' own word for his stand on the subject.
(See? What'd I tell you about Dawg's bad habits...;) )

Dr.Dawg

So now DV's "well researched piece by P. Hensher" is deficient and offers no evidence of Kingsley Amis' alleged anti-Semitism? Why didn't he say that in the first place? Here I was taking him seriously. DV, that is.

And then DV slyly returns to Martin Amis, whom no one at all has accused of anti-Semitism. This place, and no offence to the host, is starting to smell a bit of red herrings.

The issue, I had thought, was Martin Amis' comments about humiliating Muslims. And I would still be interested in any tortuous explanation of why he made such a lengthy comment about what forms this humiliation should take, if he didn't believe it?

Dom

The update from GeorgeS is worth looking at, because of a comment from someone called "Duct". He goes out of his way to subtly change Martin Amis' quote to make it agree with Eagleton's description.

John M

"And I would still be interested in any tortuous explanation of why he made such a lengthy comment about what forms this humiliation should take, if he didn't believe it?"

Well your best best would be to look again at the interview (bearing in mind that it is not reproduced verbatim). As Terry E would remind you, context is rather important in judging the meaning of a text. Amis is clearly expressing the irrational feelings of rage that are inspired by thoughts of the 9/11 murders. He is not advocating a policy. In fact, in print, where his views are more considered, unedited by others, he explicitly opposes any such repressive measures.
He was naive, perhaps , to speak so freely nd honestly to a reporter, but that is his only crime as far as I can see. When people dishonestly misrepresent others in order to smear them there is an urge, don't you feel it?, to drag them out and thrash them to within an inch of their lives until they publicly repent.

Dr.Dawg

"In fact, in print, where his views are more considered, unedited by others, he explicitly opposes any such repressive measures."

John, if you could provide a source confirming this, that would settle the argument.

Mick H

You're just trolling here, Dr.D. John M has already settled the argument. I can only repeat what I said earlier: if you can't see the difference between making a proposal and acknowledging an urge, there's really not much point in any further discussion. Go away and bother someone else.

Dr.Dawg

With respect, John has not "settled the argument." Nor have those who insist that poor Martin Amis has been misunderstood, and was really saying the very opposite of what he said. He was having it both ways, in fact, attributing his list of state measures to an "urge," but not disavowing that urge in the slightest. Surely people here can recognize political sinuousness of this kind when they see it.

Mick would just like this place to be an echo-chamber where Eagleton-bashing goes unchallenged. I would suggest that he find other, more comfortable places to make his unargued assertions.

Dr.Dawg

Yikes: I was slow. "Mick H." is mine host. My apologies, Mick, and I shall withdraw forthwith, although I can tell you that I was not here to troll, but to discuss. Good health to all of you, in any case.

Makarious

It seems to me extraordinary that Amis is being exonerated in this way. Norm Geras is right: the implication of Amis's statement is that we should somehow share a base and disgraceful form of racism. Well, I refuse to do so, and you should too.

Having said that, the idea that Eagleton could criticise anyone else for being "drink-sodden" is hilarious.

Mick H

We've been through all this, surely - it's not something Amis is proposing: as he put it elsewhere, it's something he adumbrated, not advocated. It goes without saying that it's not acceptable, and clearly Amis knows that. By defending him against Eagleton, I'm not sharing or supporting those sentiments he admitted to.

But yes, as Norm says, he could have made more effort to express regret over his remarks.

The comments to this entry are closed.