Whenever R.E.M. released any of their last half dozen albums, I used to say that they should call it Return to Form: that, after all, was what everyone was desperately hoping for – though without much hope. In reality there were always critics handy who would call it that anyway. Return to form is such a loaded phrase, ostensibly positive but carrying ahead of it the acknowledgement that the recent work has been sub-par. On the other hand, it does say that there was a form worth returning to.
And as for us – the consumers – because we have human loyalties, we want artists we admire to continue to produce good things, and it is tempting to overstate its quality to make our expectations fit. I consider myself a long-term liker of Martin Amis’s work, growing to love his stuff gradually (The Rachel Papers, Success, Other People) and then suddenly (Money) around twenty years ago. But I haven’t thoroughly loved one of his novels since 1997’s Night Train (the brilliance of which was revealed to me over four readings, with much assistance from Janis Freedman Bellow’s brilliant essay). Yellow Dog (2003) was messy, with great bits (Clint Smoker) and baffling bits (101 Heavy). House of Meetings (2006) I admit I can’t remember much about. The Pregnant Widow (2010) had a cracking prologue – a return to form! – but quickly turned into the only Martin Amis novel I haven’t finished since Dead Babies. Lionel Asbo: State of England was hammered by its title before the start, but it was often funny. And now – spoiler alert – I find myself questioning what I have just written, because I liked The Zone of Interest so much I wonder if I need to reevaluate my view of those recent works. It’s not just me. Eileen Battersby in the Irish Times, a reliable critic, breached the embargo (which ends today) and reached for the superlatives. Mark O’Connell, another astute reader, found himself wondering, “Am I crazy or is this actually very good?”
The Zone of Interest tells us not much in its blurb, just that this is “a violently dark love story set against a backdrop of unadulterated evil.” But it would be impossible to write about the book without discussing its setting. Few readers will come to it unprimed, but for them Amis teases, pulls back the sheet slowly: we’re in the KL or sometimes K-Z, then the Kat Zet, then – oh no, oh yes – the Konzentrationslager. The term becomes fuller each time, until we cannot ignore it: we are in Auschwitz in the summer of 1942, or more accurately in the ‘zone of interest’ (Interresengebiet), an area 40km² around Auschwitz that was commandeered by the Nazis to shield the camps both from Allied attacks and from the outside world knowing about them. One of the curiosities of books about the Holocaust is that I always feel that no subject could be more written on and over, yet I invariably discover just how little I know. Amis, in his 8-page afterword (how often do new novels come with those? Maybe he knows it’s a return to form too), details dozens and dozens of books that have informed the novel, which I found astonishing. It seemed to me a character-driven story, and only on flicking back can I see how the research has gone in subcutaneously, not visible on the page (there’s no what we might call ‘As you know, Bernhard…’ dialogue) but clearly informing every line.
The principal characters are three narrators, whose voices alternate. First is Angelus ‘Golo’ Thomsen, nephew of Martin Bormann and employed at the Buna-Werke, the I.G. Farben rubber factory within the Zone of Interest. “Almost hourly, here,” says Thomsen, “you felt you were living in the grounds of a vast yet bursting madhouse.” Orders have just been received to build a third concentration camp – later known as Monowitz – on the site of the Buna-Werke, which causes additional stress for the already highly-strung camp commandant, Paul Doll – our second narrator, and known to his colleagues as “the Old Boozer.” It is not just the pleasures and sorrows of work that unites Thomsen and Doll: Thomsen, a big broad Amisian giant, is a renowned … what’s the German for ‘cocksman’? – and is deeply in lust with Doll’s wife Hannah. Thomsen’s observations on Hannah Doll are in keeping with their setting in a place filled with all the animal urges but not much love. She is “certainly built on a stupendous scale: a vast enterprise of aesthetic coordination,” and, more bluntly, “I said to myself: this would be a big fuck. A big fuck.” Doll has his own erotic interest, though limited: “You’re seldom tempted, because so few of the women menstruate or have any hair.” Golo Thomsen and Paul Doll both open their narratives with promises of variation: Doll reports “acute tension, then extreme relief – then, once again, drastic pressure” as a minor triumph over adversity makes way for the much greater headache of the construction of the third camp. Thomsen begins – starts the book – with Amisian repetition:
I was no stranger to the flash of lightning; I was no stranger to the thunderbolt. Enviably experienced in these matters, I was no stranger to the cloudburst – the cloudburst, and then the sunshine and the rainbow.
But these promises of highs and lows are wildly optimistic: for most of the book the only way is down, and we get there with our third narrator, Szmul. He opens his narrative with no hope at all. “We are the saddest men in the history of the world … we are infinitely disgusting, and infinitely sad.” We are the Sonderkommando, the Jews who work in the gas chambers, who cheated death in order to spend their time scurrying over dead Jews for valuables. “Nearly all our work is done among the dead, with the heavy scissors, the pliers and mallets, the buckets of petrol refuse, the ladles, the grinders.” Szmul’s chapters are short: he is a man who has almost run out of things to say, whom language has begun to fail.
Language is central here. That might seem a needless observation, but one thing few deny of Amis is his ability still to swing a sentence with all his original power. Here, the language fits the subject and story in several ways. There is the blunt physicality of the descriptions: Szmul’s list of tools above, or “smashed-up, forty-kilo corpses,” which says everything in five words. There are the euphemisms: Doll’s role is in “Protective Custody”; the Wannsee conference, which rubber-stamped the Final Solution, was about approving “the proposed evacuations to the liberated territories in the east.” There is the doublethink: Doll reflects that after Szmul has outlived his usefulness, he “would have to be dealt with, by employment of the apt procedure.” At a lower level, too, Doll’s language distorts: his descriptions of body parts are untranslated (Titten, Brustwarten – those places where you might expect a man like him to become tongue-tied). This apt discord extends to modern phrases unexpectedly used: “This was going to be an absolute nightmare!” reflects Doll, on the building of the third camp, and we might detect pretty savage irony there too. Amis adds lightness of a sort with an extravagant range of very long German words (“tinkertoy accumulation” as Tod Friendly in Time’s Arrow put it), a comical excess of language from Kriegsgefanngnisse to Klempnerkommandofuhrer to, beautifully, Militarbereichshauptkommandoquartier.
Comical excess is a trademark of Amis’s, but can you have comedy in Auschwitz? (Can you have a love story set there?) Can it be funny? Can it meet comedy’s requirement of triumph over adversity? (The cloudburst, then the sunshine and the rainbow.) Certainly there is comedy of sorts here: discomfiting, ugly comedy, like the broad irony when Doll, speaking of the Sonderkommando like Szmul, writes, “Ach, I can hardly bring myself to set it down. You know, I never cease to marvel at the abyss of moral destitution to which certain human beings are willing to descend…” The comedy works because it only serves to highlight the horrors. The Germans worry about how they are going to keep order, keep the new arrivals in a state of blissful ignorance about their fate. Once, when struggling to dispose of the bodies of Jews, the German soldiers try blowing them up. Paul Doll, wondering why he can hear “popping, splatting, hissing,” asks and is told:
“It went everywhere. There were bits hanging from the trees.”
“What did you do?”
“We got the bits we could reach. On the lower branches.”
“What about the upper bits?”
“We just left them there.”
Is this real? Did Amis dare to invent it? Anyway the use of “it” to describe the remains of Jews is a euphemism of another sort, a kind of protective custody for the Germans to prevent them from associating their actions with people. Similarly, Doll uses “Stücke” (literally, “pieces”) to describe the Jews when accounting for them and calculating his requirements for the third camp at Auschwitz.
The Germans worry too about how quickly the Jews who are selected for work in the camp die, not for humanitarian reasons, but because it is inefficient, and there are passionate exchanges between those Germans for and against treating the working Jews better, in order to prolong their productivity. They worry about the smell of the corpses, how far it will travel and signal the truth. There are so many horrible details – the smells, the selections for who will work and who will die, the use of surgeons during interrogation – that it does seem surprising that the characters in The Zone of Interest remain so strongly in the foreground. Thomsen and Doll are on a collision course, Hannah Doll is trapped between them, and Szmul is in hell, disgusted by his sense of self-preservation, and for others a welcome conduit for disgust. “Why don’t you rise up?” Doll asks him. “Where’s your pride?” Then:
Ach, if they were real men – in their place I’d … But wait. You never are in anybody’s place. And it’s true what they say, here in the KL: No one knows themselves. Who are you? You don’t know. Then you come to the Zone of Interest, and it tells you who you are.
“No one knows themselves.” A theme here is the ineffability, the unknowability, of what and how in Auschwitz. (We don’t even ask about the why: “Here there is no why,” Amis reminds us via Primo Levi in his afterword: the phrase also gave the title for a chapter of Time’s Arrow.) We see it as a clash not just of civilisation against barbarism but between worlds: a world which makes sense and a world which does not. Thomsen sees his cat catch a mouse which, while dying in its jaws, “seemed to be smiling an apologetic smile.” What, Thomsen, wonders, was it saying? “It was saying, All I can offer, in mitigation, in appeasement, is the totality, the perfection, of my defencelessness.” What was the cat saying? “It wasn’t saying anything, naturally. Glassy, starry, imperial, of another order, of another world.” It is perhaps the “hidden world” that Thomsen believes in, running alongside our own and existing “in potentia; to gain admission to it, you had to pass through the veil or film of the customary, and act.” (Nicely understated, the “customary”, to describe what the Nazis deviated from with the Final Solution.)
This other world that the Nazis have made for themselves, and for others, is, Thomsen discovers, endless, incapable of being seen beyond, like “the great Eurasian plain, which stretched over twelve time zones and went all the way to the Yellow River and the Yellow Sea.” We get a sense of men involved in a task they cannot escape, that has taken on a life of its own – they are engaged in a Vernichtungskrieg, a war to nothing. The Zone of Interest succeeds because it puts us there and gives us an alarming perspective, of the ordinary human feelings and actions of the people engaged in the worst horror of all. (Szmul observes that “I feel we are dealing with propositions and alternatives that have never been discussed before, have never needed to be discussed before – I feel that if you knew every day, every hour, every minute of human history, you would find no exemplum, no model, no precedent.”) They make occasional protests of detachment from what is happening – “I’ve never seen one good reason for all this fuss about the Jews,” says one of Thomsen’s colleagues, and his friend Boris adds, “Golo, who in Germany didn’t think the Jews needed taking down a peg? But this is fucking ridiculous, this is” – but they have no power to stop it, and no interest in doing so anyway. Doll discusses the “need to do something” about 250,000 Poles with his notoriously violent colleague Mobius, and asks if they know what is in store for them. No, says Mobius, they hope they’ll just get dispersed. “But it’s too late for that.”
Again there is bitter humour as Thomsen and a colleague discuss the rationale for killing not just Jewish men, but women and children. “Those babes in arms will grow up and want revenge on the Nazis in about 1963. I suppose the rationale for women under forty-five is that they might be pregnant. And the rationale for the older women is while we’re at it.” So the jokes come hobbled; but no, we don’t expect comedy in a story about Auschwitz. Tragedy, however, comes pre-installed. The challenge for a novelist, whose job is to make things up, is to engage such responses in a new way, and in book which is all told from the point of view of those responsible for the killing. One of the most affecting scenes in The Zone of Interest comes when Szmul unearths from the ground and reads to his Sonder colleagues a testimony from another Jew (“who is gone now”) and which reports a young child challenging the Sonderkommando: “Why, you are a Jew and you lead such dear children to the gas – only in order to live?” But Szmul’s colleagues respond in protests as he reads, repeating the only word that makes any sense here:
Many of the men had tears in their eyes – but they weren’t tears of grief or guilt.
“Stop. She ‘made a very short but fiery speech.’ Like hell she did. Stop.”
“Stop. He lies.”
“Silence would be better than this. Stop.”
“Stop. And don’t put it back in the earth. Destroy it – unread. Stop.”
Wow! Like you I started as an Amis fan and then since Night Train have gradually fallen out of love ……I said never again after Pregnant Widow which I found to be unreadable . After reading your review I am definitely going to give him another chance . Thank you !
Having read the Eileen Battersby review and this I guess this is an Amis to get excited about… It’s been a while.
Yes it really is one to get excited about, I think. When I was flicking through it to find the quotes for this review, the urge I had more than any other was to reread it in full.
And I also thought about those other recent novels that I liked less, all of which I’ve read no more than twice (Yellow Dog) and sometimes not even once (The Pregnant Widow). It took me four readings of both The Information and Night Train to get to the point of thinking them brilliant and among his very best work – though I did like both of them to some degree from the start – so why dismiss others so early? Amis, presumably, would agree with Nabokov that “Curiously enough, one cannot read a book: one can only reread it. A good reader, a major reader, an active and creative reader is a rereader.” Of course a book must also have some qualities in order to make one want to re-read it.
I marvel at the time you must spend reading. I can barely muster five minutes between mouthfuls of food at a rushed lunch. And I am happy that Amis has an apologist of note! I remember Tibor Fischer’s review of Yellow Dog (like catching your uncle masturbating in the playground I think he said) and I didn’t get as far as Pregnant Widow. This is on my ‘to read’ list as of now. Thanks John.
Now this is exciting. He lost me around the time of The Information, but I’ve always hoped he had another great book on the way. One for the Birthday Book list for sure!
I know it would be just like me to provoke you about this but, honestly, what follows is a genuine question.
Your enjoyment of this new novel has prompted you to reconsider your views on his recent batch of duffers. At the time, did reading those duffers prompt you to reevaluate the Amis books you loved?
It’s a reasonable question, Scott. The answer is no because my default position on Amis has been, and remains, that he is a good writer whose books I tend to enjoy. So my inclination is to view the ones I didn’t like as an aberration – rather than the ones I did like. I suppose it would be interesting to consider what would happen if the number of books of his I didn’t enjoy outnumbered those that I did. But it also opens larger questions of judging books by their author at all, rather than as individual books.
“So it is a delight to report that, for this reader at least, this novel marks a return to the early form that made Martin Amis rightly famous.”
That is the sentence with which I opened the concluding paragraphs of my review of LIonel Asbo — needless to say, it immediately came to mind when I read the opening of this review.
And I repeat it here only to suggest that our similar conclusions on two quite different Amis books (I’m assuming that — I don’t have a copy of The Zone of Interest yet) would also suggest that different readers have a different “famous Amis”, if you will. (Sorry — couldn’t resist that.)
I don’t have Money in my top bunch like you do. But then you don’t have The Rachel Papers in yours and I do. And I quite enjoyed The Pregnant Widow, although it does not make my Amis favorites short list.
I think we do agree that the Yellow Dog era represents a departure from “form” for both of us.
I raise the point because I think it is testimony to an aspect of Amis’ brilliance as a writer — his ability to create several different kinds of “forms” of excellence whereby novels that are failures for some are exceptional successes for others.
I can think of few other authors that I know (Philip Roth and perhaps Saul Bellow come to mind) who provoke a similar varied response.
The use of the word stücke is chilling, but authentic. Here’s an extract from Helga Schneider’s memoir Let Me Go, in which her mother recalls her days as a guard at a concentration camp:
“‘How long did it take for the victims of the gas chambers…’
I can’t go on.
‘The gas took between three and fifteen minutes to have its effect,’ she replies in a detached and technical tone.
‘And is it true that after a certain point the exposure time was shortened?’
‘Well, they had to get through 12,000 Stück a day; they’d raised the quota.’
‘So it was possible that when you opened the doors of the gas chambers, there might have been some people who weren’t quite dead?’
‘Of course! It often happened with the children. Sometimes those little bastards were more resistant to the rat poison than the adults were,’ she adds with a sarcastic chuckle.'”
Mr. Self, very good and balanced review and kudos to the people leaving excellent comments directly related to your review. I think for me the brilliance of Martin Amis is his ability to convey absurdities in the most comic way, without losing sense of his character’s flawed humanity. I think it is this that will be his legacy in literature. Those who are offended, I think, just don’t like having the banality of utter and inexplicable evil and horror satirised. Amis is in your face and never condescends to the reader. He respects our intelligence to “get it”. And man, can he ever write. Thanks again. Heather
Hmmm, looking at Amis’ bibliography, I find that I’ve read more of them than I thought. I thought I checked out a while ago, but actually I’ve read everything up to & including House of Meetings (including most of the non-fiction, much of which is excellent, of course). So it’s just the last two novels and a couple of non-fictions I’ve missed.
Still, add me to the list of those who’ve been prompted by this review to check this one out. (Might even get Lionel Asbo from the library…)
I wonder if I was advantaged with Night Train by having first read your review, or perhaps by not having read many of his bigger works between Money and that. I loved it pretty much straight off, but then I like noir which it draws on and had your review and not that weight of expectation all of which must have helped. It’s the only Amis I’ve kept a copy of.
I’m glad this is back on form, but a Holocaust novel? I have something of an allergy to them, not because I think the Holocaust shouldn’t be kept in memory – I think it should – but because I’m profoundly sceptical of it as a subject for fiction where it brings so much weight and often unearned seriousness. It sounds like he does something interesting with it here particularly the perspectives, but still, my instinctive resistance to the topic is high.
Lionel Asbo still sounds like a well written Daily Mail rant to me.
Just a quick correction, the German should be Interessengebiet, for area of/zone of interest. Thanks for calling this and many other books to my attention!
Thanks lori! I’ve fixed this.
Reblogged this on DailyHistory.org and commented:
Recently, John Self has posted an extremely literate review of Martin Amis’s The Zone of Interest. The Zone of Interest is dark, violent love story that takes place in Aushwitz in 1942. Self’s review is definitely worth reading.
I’ve had a copy of this hanging around for a while – strange, because I’m a really big Amis fan – but finished it today. Yours was one of the first reviews I sought out to compare opinions (I rarely read reviews until I’ve finished reading a book). Already, I’m feeling massively out of step with everyone on this. When I finished the final page and set the book aside, I hardly felt like I’d read a Martin Amis novel. Perhaps this is a turn in style towards the serious, and a more technical/realist way of writing (I know Amis talked a lot about how technique only increases with age on the publication of ‘The Pregnant Widow’) but I couldn’t find a way into it. Perhaps – as per your Nabokov quote – I just need to read it again. I do think there is an overall trend of regression in Amis lately – not in the quality of his writing, but in his themes. The Pregnant Widow and Lionel Asbo feel like the retracing of old steps to me, and this is not dissimilar (although I liked the previous two novels for what they were). A big part of me feels like Amis stalled on 9/11 and couldn’t find a way to respond in fiction so has ended up in an area he feels more comfortable. There’s a lot of conjecture there, and not all relevant to this book, but Amis is an author I follow with interest. For this one, I just didn’t feel the spark Amis’s writing normally has. But reading everyone elses’ responses I’m left feeling I might have missed something.
Could never really get into Amis. This review, though, has piqued my interest. May give him another shot.
I finished Night Train suspecting that Jennifer, a physicist, had been trying to prove the reality of the Many Worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics by demonstrating her own quantum immortality. By failing to blow her brains out no matter how many times she pulled the trigger she would know that quantum events can’t kill her suddenly. That’s to assume she had worked out that a bullet in the brain is in some way a quantum event. With Quantum Immortality, you will die suddenly in most worlds but always be unharmed in other worlds, so you will never experience death (it would be too sudden). Your life would go on, for you personally, and harm would seem to be improbably averted. That is what could have happened and Mike would not know as the Mike the book is following is in a world where Jennifer dies. For the Mikes in the worlds where Jennifer lives, there would not be a case (and no book either).
Isn’t she an astrophysicist though? Still, it’s an interesting thought and I think you may have something. In my review (https://pechorinsjournal.wordpress.com/2008/08/19/martin-amis-night-train/) I linked to an old many-worlds short story by Larry Niven which while very different in terms of tone and style did approach the many worlds analysis (and which suggests I had similar thoughts to an extent to yours).
The review is an old one and the formatting seems to have gone astray. Sorry about that if you do read it. John also has a review of Night Train I think, I only read it because he first caught my interest.
Thanks both. I don’t have a review of Night Train but I do recommend Janis Freedman Bellow’s essay on it, “Second Thoughts on Night Train”, which really opened the book up to me. It’s available online, somewhere, I think…