I thought I would kick off our discussion of Martin Amis’ Money: A Suicide Note by combining my observations of the novel with our discussion in class today. I think the idea that postmodernism is in some ways aligned with consumerism certainly holds true in Money, as John spends his money at every opportunity. Say’s Law comes to mind when one looks at his spending habits: it appears that he will purchase drinks and other substances whenever the opportunity arises, including his buying several drinks for himself and the stripper Dawn drinks at the suggestion of the waitress. Similarly, he will tip the bellboy Felix with whatever bill he has in his pocket, regardless of how large the amount might be, and pays the pregnant prostitute in return for no services. This excessive consumerism, which is both a freedom and lack of freedom, is reflected in other characters such as Doris Arthur, who compromises her dignity for the sake of the “hundred thousand bucks” she will make for working on the film.
I think a lot of the economic activity in the novel can be read as a form of surplus; there is an excess of money being spent, often in exploitation of human dignity and/or intimacy. John’s use of alcohol and other abusive substances often causes him to vomit, a physical action indicative of a surplus being expelled. This makes me think of Kreisel’s reading in “Superfluidity and Suction”, which similarly cites the explosion of surplus as the cause of the flood in The Mill on the Floss. In Money, however, an excess of consumerism leads to the violence towards the self (pun intended?) and others in the novel.
I’d love to hear your thoughts, and other readings of the economic aspects of Money!
Hi Taylor,
I thought you made some great points here. The insightful connection that you made between John’s excessive use of money to Kriesel’s article was really helpful, and I think it ties well into what some of what the other students have mentioned so far, too.
Particularly, I think there is a strong connection being made in almost all the posts between money and John’s substance abuse.
The following quotes from the novel trace this theme quite well as John moves through, what I think, are the stages of addiction to money (as symbolized through his addiction to substances and high-risk behaviour and the unspeakable damage he causes to the people around him).
On p. 221, John says: “Selina says I’m not capable of true love. It isn’t true. I truly love money. I truly do. Oh money, I love you. You’re so democratic: you’ve got no favourites. You even things out for me and all my kind”.
• Here John clearly talks about his mad love for money.
Then on page 263: “You have to be tough to make money, as everyone knows. But you have to be tough to want it. Money means as much to those who have it as to those who don’t. It says so in Money. And it’s true. There is a common pool. By wanting a lot, you are taking steps to spread it thin elsewhere. I’m not sure how tough I am. I’ll find out. I know that money means a lot to me”
• First, in one of his very few and far between moments, John shows a hint of conscience by recognizing that as we gain capital, it is most often at the expense of others. This garners the tiniest bit of sympathy, which of course is instantaneously obliterated in the following paragraphs.
• But he also shifts from loving money to money just meaning a lot to him.
And lastly, on page 354: “If we all downed tools and joined hands for ten minutes, and stopped believing in money, then money would no longer exist. We never will, of course. Maybe money is the great conspiracy, the great fiction. The great addiction too: we’re all addicted and we can’t break the habit now. There’s not even anything very twentieth century about it, except the disposition. You just can’t kick it, that junk, even if you want to. You can’t get the money off your back”
• Here, John almost seems to regret that money exists at all. He recognizes his (and our) addiction to money. The first step to recovery. However, he only recognizes the damage that it has done to himself, he still has not owned up to the damage he has caused other people through this addiction.
I don’t know if this is Amis’ way of “redeeming” the character or not. I think Amis intentionally leaves the ending open. John could easily slip back into his addiction, he could follow through with ending it all, or he could make a full recovery. Perhaps in this way, Amis is inviting the reader to write their own future in relation to money. To extract life lessons from how John’s life turned out and change the way we see and interact with money.
Any thoughts?