Imagine the mass of the glove Stalin swiped across your face; imagine the mass of it.
Bad writing can make you disagree with sentiments you know to be true. For the time spent reading that sentence, I’m convinced the Soviet Holocaust was not really such a big deal. It’s an odd state of mind but one I can reenter whenever those sixteen words are before me.
The sentence is from Koba the Dread: Laughter and the Twenty Million, a brief historical work in which Amis squared his shoulders and looked the Soviet disaster straight in the kneecaps. The book reveals that Kingsley Amis, Martin’s father, was a Communist Party member until 1956. I find that incredible. It means Lucky Jim (published in 1954) was written by a Communist, which means that the funniest person in the world was a Communist. Then Khruschev had to go spill the beans and Amis senior abruptly gave up Communism; he also gave up being funny, but more gradually and without conscious intention.
Another surprise: Christopher Hitchens was a Trotskyite. I knew he was left, but I assumed that meant New Left. In America nobody looked toward the Russian Revolution for much of anything after the Port Huron Statement. But in ’70s London a bright young person, or at least Christopher Hitchens, could still pick a favorite Bolshevik and take him seriously.
Amis’s trick of turning the reader against beliefs the reader holds is known as the Friedman Effect in honor of Thomas L. Friedman. The effect springs into action when a writer not only does a bad job technically but also gives the impression that a belief is especially beholden to him or her for subscribing to it.
I knew Hitchens was a Trotskyite. It makes a lot of sense; once a moral climber, always a moral climber.
I’m having trouble imagining the mass of Stalin’s glove. Was his glove made of steel, in honor of his name? I guess that would hurt.
What, forgot the “who do you take a bun from” argument between Jim and Bertrand?
Much cleverness here, but I’ll defend Amis: it may be the most presumptuous book ever written (it may!), but it also does no less than an admirable job of hitting the broad side of a barn — I freely confess, I couldn’t have done it as well. Could you? The description of Lenin as a moral imbecile will likely stay with me the rest of my life; the idea that Hitchens’ journalism was held back by his willingness (or need?) to postpone certain truths is arresting, particularly considering what’s gone on with him since 9/11; I’ve found that “negative perfection” is a phrase that comes in handy; the panto-routine between Amis and Hitchens over whether you can make moral comparisons between Stalin and Hitler is worth the price of admission alone.
Would read again.
What, forgot the “who do you take a bun from” argument between Jim and Bertrand?
That’s not communism, that’s fair shares. Nothing in the book indicates the author had to be a communist and not Labour.
I freely confess, I couldn’t have done it as well. Could you?
Yes, if I felt like it.
the panto-routine between Amis and Hitchens over whether you can make moral comparisons between Stalin and Hitler is worth the price of admission alone.
Okay, that’s something to look forward to.
You’d better be English if you say “panto-routine.”
I’m Canadian, eh? And what’s this “fair shares” bullshit, I confess I am not familiar with this political philosophy, is it like rock-paper-scissors or is it more like reply-hazy-try-again-later? Kindly explain to me the difference between the Labour Party and the Communist Party and the “fair shares” ideology, perhaps I am stupid but you seem to be rather the bullshitter on this point, and as much as I really and truly do like this blog, if you guys ever stop putting your money where your mouth is I think I’ll like it a lot less. So put it there now.
In short: I call shenanigans, Tom. Six years of political philosophy over here. Define terms. Mark out polarities. Name names.
“Fair shares”. Well are you a fucking socialist, or are you not? This seems like a bunch of wiffle-waffling, to me.
Sorry if that sounds harsh.
“Fair Shares for All” was a slogan of the Labour Party in the old days, when the party was socialist.
You cannot possibly believe that communism is just another name for socialism. There’s no way.
The thumbnail difference between communism and socialism is that socialists believe in government change through peaceful means (such as elections) while communists believe that real change can only come through violent revolution. That’s a fairly major political difference, as these things go.