Martin Amis is angry. And concerned. And disappointed. You can tell because his latest essay, published in The Times today, begins with a quite fantastical excursion into etymological territory: a 700-word meditation on the written formulation “9/11” which he concludes with the pronouncement that
…my principal objection to the numbers [“9/11”] is that they are numbers. The solecism, that is to say, is not grammatical but moral-aesthetic—an offence against decorum; and decorum means “seemliness”, which comes from soemr, “fitting”, and soema, “to honour”. 9/11, 7/7: who or what decided that particular acts of slaughter, particular whirlwinds of plasma and body parts, in which a random sample of the innocent is killed, maimed or otherwise crippled in body and mind, deserve a numerical shorthand? Whom does this “honour”? What makes this “fitting”? So far as I am aware, no one has offered the only imaginable rationale: that these numerals, after all, are Arabic.
Amis is a fine novelist and literary critic, but somewhere along the line he seems to have got confused about language and reality. Analysing the finest details of literature is illuminating and important work, and few are better at it than Amis. But analysing the “style” of political discourse like this seems a bizarre and contorted form of wishfulness—and a desperate attempt to suggest that its author’s linguistic acuity is itself a “moral-aesthetic” force to be reckoned with.
The assumptions wrapped up in that terse “moral-aesthetic” are particularly problematic. Amis has always argued, after Nabokov, that “style is morality”—but this is an assumption that can itself only be taken so far before it begins to look indecorous. Does he mean that bad people always, on some level, betray themselves by their lapses of style: or that good critics, like himself, are necessar…