Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Simon Cook's avatar

Like many I love Money, London Fields & The Information but when I wrote a chapter of a PhD on pornography in literature and focussed primarily on Yellow Dog it became apparent that, while I saw it as ground-breaking if flawed, it attracted much journalistic and academic ire. Conversations with colleagues dissuaded me from teaching it on the grounds of perceived sexism, structural illegibility, etc. But to add my answers to the question .... 1) YD is among many Amis high-concept, pun & joke based novels with plots which don't really end, just rather judder to a halt; 2) he may be our Dickens but he seldom writes with warmth.

Expand full comment
Biblio Files's avatar

The short answer is probably… Money didn’t make the shortlist in 1984, and if you look at that shortlist only the Barnes and Ballard novels are remembered. Flaubert’s Parrot should have won, but in hindsight Money’s absence from the shortlist looks odd.

In 1989 it would be hard to argue that London Fields should have pipped The Remains Of The Day, but again not being shortlisted stands out. There was publicity at the time around two of the judges digging their heels in against Amis, and it was unfortunate that it later transpired that Maggie Gee hadn’t understood the novel, and was mistaken in her objections.

Agree that The Information is the best of the trilogy. Looking at what else was in the running in 1995 that is perhaps a clearer case of daylight robbery.

The Booker process always has had odd outcomes, which is part of the charm.

Expand full comment
2 more comments...

No posts