REPORTS FROM GULAG
By Tom Chatfield
In 2002,
Martin Amis gave us Koba
the Dread, a non-fictional account of Stalin's
House of
Meetings is a posthumous address, narrated by a nameless 86-year-old Russian to
his African-American stepdaughter. It is 2004 and, as the Beslan
school siege and massacre unfolds elsewhere, our narrator is travelling up the Yenisei river into
In House of
Meetings, the present is all aftermath. “My country is dying…
House of
Meetings is also a tirade against what its narrator calls “westernism,”
something he identifies in his stepdaughter as a reflexive ideology of mildness
and relativism: “your crowd, they're so terror-stricken by generalisations that
they can't even manage a declarative sentence.” This is an old Amis rant (his collected essays, The War Against
Cliché, begins with an assault on the vacuity of “emotional egalitarianism”),
but in the context of his recent writings it has an especially hard edge—the
implication that to be overcautious is to be complicit in the evils of
fanaticism and intolerance. Addressing his stepdaughter, our narrator demands
that she develop a more active position on his deeds than mere empathy: “My
ghost expects censure. But make it personal, Venus; make it your own and not
the censure of your group and your ideology.” Similarly, Amis's
prose goads his readers towards reaction, holding past horrors up for
inspection with the insistence that these are actively related to the world's
ongoing terrors. “It is not given to many—the chance to shoot children in the
back as they swerve in their underwear past rotting corpses,” we are dryly told
of the world in 2004. Neutrality is not an option.
Of all the
conflicts within Martin Amis's recent work, perhaps the
most telling is the paradox inherent in his dogmatic, absolutist accounts of
the evils of dogmatism and absolutism. Like DH Lawrence's praise of the novel
as “incapable of the absolute,” to which much of Amis's
criticism is indebted, the “ideology of no ideology” that has been Amis's recent credo is a distinctly mobile standard. There
is much in House of Meetings to admire, especially in contrast to the less
successful recent stories “In the Palace of the End” and “The Last Days of
Mohamed Atta,” but there is also something
self-cancelling about its simultaneous insistence on the adequacy (as confessor
and awakener) and the irrelevance of literary art. The 21st century is glimpsed
only obliquely, but what we see of it suggests that our narrator's “pedagogic
mantle” conceals as much anger and despair as it does wisdom. It is perhaps the
novel's greatest strength that, unlike its author's recent non-fictional
diatribes against Islamism, it asks for “censure” as much as for assent; but
the muddy weight of the past it dredges has little news to offer those versed
in the last century's innumerable first-hand accounts of atrocity.
House of
Meetings ends with a nod to Chaucer, as our narrator terminates his life and
returns us to the figure of his stepdaughter: young, American and burnished
with everything western democracy can give its youth in the way of liberty and
security—“good diet, lavish health insurance, two degrees, foreign travel and
languages, orthodonture, psychotherapy, property, and
capital.” There is hope and heartfelt praise in this. Both the novel and its
author, however, seem doubtful on the question of whether even such bounty can
be enough.
Text taken
from:
http://www.prospect-magazine.co.uk/article_details.php?id=7924
(viewed in 5th November 2008 at 18.30 pm)