Use this URL to cite or link to this record in EThOS: http://ethos.bl.uk/OrderDetails.do?uin=uk.bl.ethos.660499
Title: Beyond a misogynist's aesthetic : rereading the fiction of Philip Roth and Martin Amis
Author: Peeler, N. D.
Awarding Body: University of Edinburgh
Current Institution: University of Edinburgh
Date of Award: 2008
Availability of Full Text:
Full text unavailable from EThOS.
Please contact the current institution’s library for further details.
Abstract:
This dissertation offers re-readings of works by two of the most controversial and influential living writers: Martin Amis and Philip Roth. These writers are often accused of amorality, or even immorality, and this thesis deals with the controversies these authors have incited with specific focus on their alleged misogyny. Chapter 1 defines exactly why Amis and Roth are genuine problems for readers. However, I argue that simply condemning these writers also disables a reader’s ability to see just how invested they are in issues of pressing importance to contemporary society. Chapter 2, 3 and 4 examine specific novels by these authors in the light of theories significant both to their work as well as popular and academic culture. I propose that the overarching theme that links these three specific topics, the novels, and their authors is how the gendered subject emerges through time. Chapter 2 looks at how both Amis and Roth explore their separate theories about ideology, and especially the idea of ‘goodness’, in Other People: A Mystery Story, and When She Was Good. Chapter 3 takes as its subject trauma, history, and narrative, illustrating how they relate to Time’s Arrow, and Sabbath’s Theater. Finally, Chapter 4 engages with masculinity theory, demonstrating Roth’s and Amis’ interest in the subject as exemplified in Portnoy’s Complaint and London Fields. This thesis seeks to illustrate that Amis’ and Roth’s intellectual engagement with the issues underlying these current theories defies those critics who argue that they are amoral, immoral, or engaged entirely with their own solipsistic philosophies.
Supervisor: Not available Sponsor: Not available
Qualification Name: Thesis (Ph.D.) Qualification Level: Doctoral
EThOS ID: uk.bl.ethos.660499  DOI: Not available
Share: