Unlike Prince, Samson Young, the narrator of and in this novel, appears to have none of his predecessor’s godlike control over the actions occurring within the narrative. A Jewish American journalistic writer suffering from a twenty-year writer’s block, he has come to London after answering an ad in the New York Review of Books for an apartment exchange. (It is typical of the strategy of this novel that he should have been drawn into the book by a literary artefact that is about books.) He finds himself occupying the palatial flat of a successful English playwright called Mark Asprey. Asprey’s initials echo those of Martin Amis, so we have from the start the ghost of the author casting his enigmatic shadow over his fictional stand-in, the narrator. Sam, like the earth, is suffering from the final stages of a wasting disease (‘“Radiogenic, naturally”’ (p. 161)) that makes him almost impervious to the lure of sexual love. He is quintessentially one of life’s observers, ‘less a novelist than a queasy cleric, taking down the minutes of real life’. What he finds in the Nicola-Keith-Guy triangle is a ready-made thriller. ‘Not a whodunit. More a whydoit’ (p. 3). Thanks to Nicola’s convenient ability to see into the future he can tell us exactly how and when she will die. Only who her murderer will be remains unknown.
So Amis sets up the novel in such a way that Nicola has to lure one of the men into murdering her while Sam has to worm his way into the main characters’ lives (imaginatively as well as physically) in order to get his novel written before he dies himself. ‘I’m on deadline too here, don’t forget/ he writes punningly on the first page. The end of his novel has to be made to coincide with the end of Nicola’s life on her thirty-fifth birthday and has to be finished before his own life is finished. We are forced to notice the artificial neatness of this entire construct in the opening pages. It is far too orderly to be true to life, although it qualifies as ‘a true story’ (p. 1), that is, a true fiction. At the beginning of the book Sam cannot understand this distinction. He sees himself as no more than a second-rate reporter doing ‘fieldwork’, incapable of ‘improving on reality’ (p. 39). He begins his researches in the spirit of a peeping Tom. Yet a crucial part of his initial raw material turns out to be not life in the raw but literature. He enters a web of intertextuality. He recovers Nicola’s diaries that reveal among other things that she had had a torrid affair with Mark Asprey before his departure for Sam’s apartment in New York. Keith gives him a brochure outlining the dubious services he offers. Guy reluctantly parts with two autobiographical stories he has written. Sam comments: ‘[documentary evidence. Is that what I’m writing? A documentary? As for artistic talent, as for the imaginative patterning of life, Nicola wins. She outwrites us all’ (p.43). She acts, that is, as Sam’s muse. On his first visit to her apartment he pleads, ‘“Nicola, let me be your diary”’ (p. 62). A diary might be a daily record, but that does not make it any more factual than other forms of writing.
The plot of the narrative is ostensibly being concocted by Nicola. She, not Sam, is in control of the fabula (story [the chronological events as they would occur in actual life]) although the syuzhet (or plot [the arrangement of events in the narrative, which may and usually does depart from strict chronology]) is necessarily in the hands of the story’s narrator. As the novel progresses, Sam is drawn into the plot of the story he is telling, and not simply as a passive participant. At the end of Chapter 4 he stops Keith’s narration of his first visit to Nicola’s flat in mid-flight to go and see her himself to check out the accuracy of Keith’s story that was being regaled to his mates at the pub and was in danger of turning fictional. Fictional! Sam should know better. When he arrives at Nicola’s, she is reluctant to let him in. So he plays ‘a mild hunch’, and tells her that there is no need to dress for him. He scores a bullseye (to adopt Keith’s darts lingo). She invites him up. ‘That’s what writing is, a hundred hunches …’ he comments (p. 60). Life and literature are becoming indistinguishable, even for the documentary narrator.
Gradually the scale of his interventions in the plot escalates. ‘Guy asked my advice about Nicola. I gave my advice (it was bad advice), and with any luck he’ll take it’ (p. 101). He can’t afford to have Guy see through her or his story will be ruined. But wasn’t it Nicola’s story? Sam does have moral qualms. He asks Nicola, “‘Do you really need Guy? Couldn’t you just edit him out?”’ (p. 119). Amis here is simultaneously sharing the author’s dilemma with his readers. Sam also tries to get her to pay off Keith’s gambling debts to prevent Keith’s having his darts finger broken in retaliation. Next he traps Nicola into revealing her earlier affair with Mark Asprey. (How can Nicola be said to be in control of this part of the story?) Forced to try and fly back to New York for a week, Sam asks her to ‘“keep activity to the minimum”’ while he’s gone (p.235). On his return, after discovering the cigarette burns on Keith’s daughter, whom he has grown to love, and thinking that Keith may have caused them (having misread one of Keith’s diary entries - another instance of the unreliability of journal writing), he pleads with Nicola to lure Keith away from his home as much as possible and keep him happy so as to minimize the possibility of his hurting his daughter again. “‘There go my unities,”’ Sam remarks (p. 388). Ostensibly he is referring to the Aristotelian unity of place. More important, he is drawing attention to the multiplicity of narrative voices in the book. Sam might be the designated narrator, but Nicola is meant to appear to control the plot, and M.A. lurks just off stage reminding us that both Sam and Nicola are narrative mouthpieces with limited autonomy. There is no escaping the problematics of the narrative act in Amis’s fiction.
As the interventions by the narrator in the events that he is narrating grow in importance, instances proliferate in the narrative of the dependence of narrative, not on life, but on other narrative. Take the case of Keith. Even more than John Self in Money, he is the typical product of what [Jean] Baudrillard has called the age of simulation. Simulation, according to Baudrillard, is opposed to representation. In an age of simulation it is no longer possible to distinguish between the image as representation of a reality outside it and the simulacrum, ‘never again exchanging for what is real, but exchanging in itself, in an uninterrupted circuit without reference or circumference’.141 Keith has been educated by the popular media. His idea of authenticity and his expressions and vocabulary all derive from the tabloids and television. Initially, Sam makes the mistake of thinking that the string of clichés that Keith employs when he describes a football match he has attended are ‘just memorized sections of the tabloid sports pages’. Then with a shock he realizes that they are ‘what he actually sees’ (pp. 97, 98). Similarly Keith’s attitude to women and sex is entirely conditioned by the media, especially the porn industry. Nicola comes to understand that, if it were possible to make a taxonomy of it, ‘[h]is libido would be all tabloid and factoid’ (p. 202). He actually prefers sex on video, which is where he acquired a taste for it in the first place.
Video allows him to fast forward the uninteresting bits and to freeze frame the most salacious glimpses of female flesh. Nicola, who understands the power of simulacra, capitalizes on this by seducing Keith on screen, making pornographic videos of herself for him to watch in solitary, onanistic pleasure.
Keith is an extreme example of the general truth that, as Amis says, ‘our sex lives are mediated by images from elsewhere that we now all have in our heads’. Nicola equally manipulates Guy with ‘ads for love’ in which, ‘like advertisements for menthol cigarettes, they walk through the corn hand in hand’.142 Guy’s sister-in-law Lizzy’s love life reduces itself to a series of capitalized media cliches - ‘He Refuses To Make A Commitment. She Has A Problem Giving Him The Space He Needs …’ (p. 281). Even Sam is not immune. ‘I too,’ he writes, ‘have need of the Fast Forward’ (p.40). Sam’s na[ï]ve attempt to keep life and fiction separate from each other is undermined in numerous ways throughout the novel. He is forced to admit the extent to which the demands of narrative form compel him to tone down Marmaduke, Guy’s horrific
baby, a caricature that Amis calls entirely ‘essayesque’,143or to exclude important material from the book. Missy, for example, Sam’s American girlfriend, ‘had to go. For reasons of balance. Reasons of space’ (p.435)… . ‘The form itself is my enemy,’ Sam realizes. ‘In fiction (rightly so called), people become coherent and intelligible -and they aren’t like that’ (p. 240). What Sam fails to see is that he, too, is writing within a narrative genre, the thriller, which he is simultaneously subverting by turning it into a ‘whydoit’. Amis uses Sam’s literary na[ï]veté to demonstrate the inescapability of the poststruc-turalist assumption that all forms of narrative belong to the democratic state of textuality.
Not only does Amis totally undermine Sam’s claim to factual reportage in his narration; he also problematizes the distinction between life and literature. Literature insists on spilling over into life in a hundred different ways in this book. When Guy, stifled by his expensive domestic life, tells his wife he’s going out, she asks him what for. ‘“See some life,”’ he shouts back. ‘“Oh. Life! Oh I get it. Life’” (p. 86). That confusion between Life and Life is necessary for the novel to work. In a letter in which Mark Asprey tells Sam he should try writing fiction, he also recommends Sam read his novel, Crossbone Waters. The book, an adventure story with a love interest, turns out to be ‘an awful little piece of shit’ (p. 389). Next Sam discovers some old magazines in which it turns out that the heroine sued Mark Asprey for her portrayal in the book and the entire novel was a thinly disguised slice of life. Finally, in his last letter to Sam, Mark Asprey admits that virtually all of his book including the heroine’s magnificent breasts was a figment of his imagination. Asprey’s justification: ‘[i]t doesn’t matter what anyone writes any more. The time for it mattering has passed. The truth doesn’t matter any more and is not wanted’ (p.452). We are thrown back into a Baudrillardian world where images no longer represent anything beyond themselves. In this fictional world in which Keith and everyone else cheats in one form or another, in this apocalyptic fable about our postmodern condition, Life is Life.
Who then is making whom up? Who is in control of this narrative? Is it Sam? Is it Nicola? According to Sam she ‘outwrites us all’ (p.43). Yet even here Sam is employing writing as a figure of speech. Certainly she outacts them all. She is also aware of the power writing can exercise over life. She starts off dropping her diaries in Sam’s sight. She uses a book to reveal to Guy the fact that she had guyed him all along about her invented friend, Enola Gay, the name of the plane that delivered the first atom bomb, Little Boy (implying that guys like Guy ought to be better read in the history of the discovery of thermonuclear fission). She knows how to really revenge herself on Mark Asprey - by locking herself in a room and burning the manuscript of the only novel he ever wrote from the heart … But what about her own status within the novel? This is problematic, to say the least. One reviewer called her ‘a masturbatory figment of male imagination, not really a woman at all’.144 Sam worries about this:
‘Nicola, I’m worried about you, as usual … I’m worried they’re going to say you’re a male fantasy figure.’
‘I am a male fantasy figure. I’ve been one for fifteen years. It really takes it out of a girl.’
‘But they don’t know that.’
‘I’m sorry, I just am’ (p. 260).
… Amis is covertly offering an ironic defense within the novel of his penchant for female characters like Selina [in Money] and Nicola. ‘I’m writing comedies. Vamps and ballbreakers and golddiggers are the sort of women who belong in comedy’.145 Such women are types, the subjects of fictional narratives, genre-specific. Nicola herself begins to question her own reality status within the novel when she gets into a conversation with Sam about when it is acceptable for fictional characters to vacillate. She agrees that characters subject to sexual vacillation are permissible:
‘They are the story. With the other stuff there’s no story until they’re out of the way.’
I said uneasily, ‘But you’re not in a story. This isn’t some hired video, Nicola.’
She shrugged. ‘It’s always felt like a story,’ she said (p. 118).
Amis is constantly playing metafictional games of this kind with his readers, and nowhere more than in the surprise ending. The narrator replaces Guy at the last minute to become what? The one to bring Nicola’s life within the narrative to an end? Or the real fall guy whom Nicola had set up from the start? ‘She outwrote me. Her story worked. And mine didn’t’, Sam writes after taking the pill that will end his life (p. 466). But it is his story of her story. He has outlived her. He has contained her within his larger narrative.
But Amis has not finished playing metafictional hide and seek with the reader. How does Mark Asprey, or rather M. A., come into all this? Because the whole novel only works on the premise that the reader is aware of the author’s playing games with his na[ï]ve narrator who is nevertheless given all the linguistic sophistication of Amis’s developed narrative style. Amis is constantly playing implicit jokes on the narrator. For one so earnestly bent on adhering to the facts, for example, he shows a tremendous unconscious talent for fictional allusion. On reading the contents of Nicola’s diary, he comments that it ‘was … just a chronicle of a death foretold’ (p. 17). At the end of the book he leaves Mark Asprey his ‘confession’, saying that ‘[p]erhaps it is also an elegy to the memory of an unfortunate lady’ (p.468). Unwittingly he transforms factual diaries and confessions into fictional fables by [G]arcía Márquez and Pope. [The allusions are to the title of Gabriel Garcia Márquez’s novel Chronicle of a Death Foretold (1981) and Alexander Pope’s poem ‘Elegy to the Memory of an Unfortunate Lady’ (1717).] Only in the Endpapers, Sam’s two last letters to Mark Asprey and Kim Talent, does Sam begin to suspect that he is himself the victim of fictional invention. His letter to Mark ends with a PPS: ‘[y]ou didn’t set me up. Did you?’ (p. 468). And in his letter to Keith’s daughter he feels himself succumbing to the pill he took: ‘[bjlissful, watery and vapid, the state of painlessness is upon me. I feel seamless and insubstantial, like a creation. As if someone made me up, for money. And I don’t care’ (p.470). He might have been responsible for bringing Nicola’s life to an end. And she might have ensured that he brought his own life to an end. But at the last minute he realizes that both of them have been given life and deprived of it by the ghostly M. A. The narrator is and always has been as much of a fictional instrument as the characters in the hands of the author. The author. Not Mark Asprey. Because authors can never enter directly into their own narratives. They are compelled to invent alter egos, Sams or Mark Aspreys, who, by the essential nature of fictional narrative, are held at a distance from their creators who are themselves locked in their solipsistic state of non-narrative being.
If, as Amis maintains, the bleak facts of contemporary life can only be rendered comically, that is with black humor, then it is essential that readers be induced to identify with the author rather than with the objects of his creation whom he seeks to mock with his dark laughter. To effect this the author has to introduce a narrative alter ego in the person of the narrator, someone who can both enter the action and control it and us, the readers. But the narrator is not the author. In both Other People and London Fields Amis explores the ambiguous position that the narrator of postmodern fiction such as his must occupy. Simultaneously he must be both an instrument for the author and as much a victim of the author’s capricious will as any of the other characters. Similarly readers are made to see their active implication in the sadistic treatment met out to characters by narrator and author, and yet to be themselves subject to the wayward will of the author.
In fact, Amis goes out of his way to detach his readers by the end of each book from the narrator who has acted as their Virgilian guide through the inferno of contemporary civilization. Having encouraged the narrator to do our dirty work for us, we ultimately find ourselves victims with him of the author’s covert manipulation. By killing off the narrator a
t the end of both books, Amis is abruptly distancing us from the narrative, compelling us to take an extranarrative perspective, to share with the author his murderous act of closure. London Fields is a ‘whydoit’ in more senses than one. It investigates why eventually it is the narrator who murders Nicola. It also investigates why we as readers want Sam (or one of Amis’s fictional characters) to murder her. What is this rage for form? Why do we derive enjoyment in proportion to the ingenuity shown by the author in plotting the murderous end to his characters’ fictional lives? The appeal of fiction has always been the clarity it offers us by its orderly rearrangement of life. What postmodern writers such as Amis have done is additionally to draw our attention with various metafictional devices to the artistic ingenuity entailed in transforming life into Life, anarchy into order, homicide into harmless pleasure, and readerly into writerly narration.146 □
The Fiction of Martin Amis Page 15