Evaluating Amanda McKittrick Ros's work

Submitted by jonojono on
You know, something I find kind of weird on this forum is that there have been something like 18000 views of the various AMR threads, but to date only 15 replies. Why the reticence? Come out of the closet Amanda fans! Say it loud, say "I'm into this stuff!" So I'm going to suggest a challenge: who out there is prepared to write a quick response to one of the following questions? 1) According to writer Mario Vargas Llosa, 'literature is fire, . . . it means non-conformity and rebellion'. What is rebellious or non-conformist about an AMR novel or novels you have read? 2) In a letter to a friend, AMR said that she expected that people would still be talking about her 1000 years later. To what extent do you think she will attain such immortality? 3) 'The role of the novelist is to ask questions and explore issues about society'. Discuss this with detailed reference to a work by AMR.
Forums
Amanda McKittrick Ros

Comments

Leave a comment
The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and email addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
Submitted by Alfred Armstrong on 26 Nov 2007 - 10:34 Permalink
Sadly, I supect many of the "views" are from search engine robots. Although not to be discriminatory perhaps the robots are AMR fans too, yet too shy to post. 1) Amanda was not a conscious rebel, I think. She wanted to emulate her favourite writers and be admitted to the canon. She rebelled inadvertently against conventions of grammar, taste and sense. Good for her. 2) I intend to live long enough to ensure this occurs. 3) This box is not large enough to contain my answer.
Submitted by jonojono on 26 Nov 2007 - 23:25 Permalink
Yes, she seemed deeply conservative in her views, and this comes through both in her private life (see the biography) and in the themes present in her novels. I don't have the books on hand to find a quote, but her concentration on, and admiration for, upper class society ("socialism") suggests that she was a political conservative. I'd have to take another look at Helen Huddleson, but was her attempt to render speech phonetically a form of mockery? In a social-moral sense, she also seems very conservative. Irene Iddesleigh gets her dues for two-timing her husband and generally being a deceitful cow. Really, no one gets away with doing anything wrong. Putting the two together, I wonder whether AMR very deliberately made the character of Irene Iddesleigh an adopted daughter, so that she [i]could[/i] behave the way that she did (i.e. in ways unbecoming of a high-bred woman)? The flaw in this argument is, of course, that Irene suddenly reveals to Sir John that she has just found out that was also born into nobility before being adopted. However, the lack of any foreshadowing of this event suggests that AMR merely inserted this point on a whim, clashing with her earlier intention to provide Irene with a reason for her character flaws.
Submitted by jonojono on 26 Nov 2007 - 23:56 Permalink
As for the 1000 years bit . . . it's an interesting one. Sadly, we have already seen her star fade pver the last 30 years. But then again, although her admirers may be smaller in number now, we lack nothing in passion for her work. Perhaps it will always be so: small, persistent cult followings. On the other hand, there can be no doubt that AMR is unique, will never be bettered in the field, and will occasionally really capture the mood of a time, perhaps a generation. So I see her popularity periodically blossoming and declining over the next few hundred years at least. Whether or not she will still be talked about 930 years from now . . . mmm . . . I suspect she might. The one thing that might really stand in her way is the huge changes in the English language that will occur. It could render her prose even more impenetrable to the wider public and may alienate the common reader even more than, say, Chaucer for a 20thC reader. We shall have to wait and see . . .
Posted by jonojono on
Forums
Amanda McKittrick Ros
You know, something I find kind of weird on this forum is that there have been something like 18000 views of the various AMR threads, but to date only 15 replies. Why the reticence? Come out of the closet Amanda fans! Say it loud, say "I'm into this stuff!" So I'm going to suggest a challenge: who out there is prepared to write a quick response to one of the following questions? 1) According to writer Mario Vargas Llosa, 'literature is fire, . . . it means non-conformity and rebellion'. What is rebellious or non-conformist about an AMR novel or novels you have read? 2) In a letter to a friend, AMR said that she expected that people would still be talking about her 1000 years later. To what extent do you think she will attain such immortality? 3) 'The role of the novelist is to ask questions and explore issues about society'. Discuss this with detailed reference to a work by AMR.

Comments

Leave a comment
The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and email addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
Submitted by Alfred Armstrong on 26 Nov 2007 - 10:34 Permalink
Sadly, I supect many of the "views" are from search engine robots. Although not to be discriminatory perhaps the robots are AMR fans too, yet too shy to post. 1) Amanda was not a conscious rebel, I think. She wanted to emulate her favourite writers and be admitted to the canon. She rebelled inadvertently against conventions of grammar, taste and sense. Good for her. 2) I intend to live long enough to ensure this occurs. 3) This box is not large enough to contain my answer.
Submitted by jonojono on 26 Nov 2007 - 23:25 Permalink
Yes, she seemed deeply conservative in her views, and this comes through both in her private life (see the biography) and in the themes present in her novels. I don't have the books on hand to find a quote, but her concentration on, and admiration for, upper class society ("socialism") suggests that she was a political conservative. I'd have to take another look at Helen Huddleson, but was her attempt to render speech phonetically a form of mockery? In a social-moral sense, she also seems very conservative. Irene Iddesleigh gets her dues for two-timing her husband and generally being a deceitful cow. Really, no one gets away with doing anything wrong. Putting the two together, I wonder whether AMR very deliberately made the character of Irene Iddesleigh an adopted daughter, so that she [i]could[/i] behave the way that she did (i.e. in ways unbecoming of a high-bred woman)? The flaw in this argument is, of course, that Irene suddenly reveals to Sir John that she has just found out that was also born into nobility before being adopted. However, the lack of any foreshadowing of this event suggests that AMR merely inserted this point on a whim, clashing with her earlier intention to provide Irene with a reason for her character flaws.
Submitted by jonojono on 26 Nov 2007 - 23:56 Permalink
As for the 1000 years bit . . . it's an interesting one. Sadly, we have already seen her star fade pver the last 30 years. But then again, although her admirers may be smaller in number now, we lack nothing in passion for her work. Perhaps it will always be so: small, persistent cult followings. On the other hand, there can be no doubt that AMR is unique, will never be bettered in the field, and will occasionally really capture the mood of a time, perhaps a generation. So I see her popularity periodically blossoming and declining over the next few hundred years at least. Whether or not she will still be talked about 930 years from now . . . mmm . . . I suspect she might. The one thing that might really stand in her way is the huge changes in the English language that will occur. It could render her prose even more impenetrable to the wider public and may alienate the common reader even more than, say, Chaucer for a 20thC reader. We shall have to wait and see . . .