Norman Mailer interviewed by Martin Amis, 1991. (4 of 4)

British TV.

[@Hellbrokeluce]

Amazing how prescient Mailer was, one of the great minds of the 20th century.

[@user-rz6bc2cl3c]

Great to meet 2 of the finest minds on the planet. Such thoughts with even greater expression. We need more of these. Bravo for the concept and getting these two 'gentlemen' together. What a breath of fresh air!

[@clareomarfran]

Oh, how cute Martin Amis was. And Mailer in his bemused later years, the strut gone, but the intelligence still bristling. Great artifact. Thanks for posting this.

[@Markamccann]

Excellent contribution! Superb interview, many thanks.

[@Mrsilenciobackgammon]

I quite enjoyed this. He was an education. Thanks for the post.

[@queenban]

Solid answers to serious questions. Thanks for posting.

[@kundalinipsych]

It took a while but that depression is right around the corner now. Enjoyed this, two useful guys on their day.

[@underbedbeast]

Thank you for this post!

[@WilliamThomason]

Compelling for the listening & the learning: these masters of language and thought.

[@jide1000]

I believe Mailer was consistent, and to a great degree prophetic. He was not infallible . Who is? But by and large history will not judge him harshly.

[@artistsandbox]

I like the comment on the corporate emphasis on marketing versus putting out quality products

[@mikeraftery4980]

thanks, Martin

[@valpergalit]

How bizarre that they played the Star-Spangled Banner at the end.

[@TomorrowWeLive]

kind of comically perfect

[@SamuelDaram]

Agree. Why won't we see the likes of Mailer and Vidal again? Why should we think like that? Mailer bravely wrote about how he saw the world. And there are still novelists who have that mindset. The only question is whether a novelist can make a living by writing novels alone. Mailer and Vidal were able to live and earn by the pen. What do you think?

[@hotstixx]

Wonderfully seasoned mind in action.

[@Guedingen]

ONly Vidal's left now - we'll never see their likes again. With all their faults, they were giants. Many thanks.

[@strings41]

We could use Mailer today.

[@channelfogg6629]

Excellent. Only a writer can really talk to a writer.

[@SuperBagshot]

Mailer feels he had little or no effect

[@LeBigMacDaddy]

If they wanted to disturb the transmission, wouldn't they have gone for the sound? Or 'maybe thats what they want us to believe?' Bloody conspiracy theorists

[@urbankheki]

Why is picture so bad? Was Washington or CIA trying to disturb the British tv transmission...? I thought it used to be a communist practice...

[@zachgates7491]

Mailer complaining about bureaucracy is amusing.

[@bapyou]

@gitchigoomi "As I got older, more intelligent, and naturally more conservative" A natural progression? I know plenty of doofus conservatives older than me. "There is nothing more pathetic than an aging liberal." Ohhhh ... I'd put an aging conservative who's lost all sense of proportion and morality right up there as well.

[@Tlk2435asdko43]

damn, the fema camps are real

[@Jim54_]

Don’t forget, this is the same Norman Mailer that tried to kill his wife with a pen knife, punched out Gore Vidal at a party and had a violent on camera fight with RIP Torn. The man was prone to violent outbursts, and at best could be described as dangerous. That hardly qualifies him to lecture people about much, seeing as he was so mentally unstable

[@MK-sx3bm]

What? Try to distinguish the value of an idea from the value of its origin. No one is asking you to marry him after all. Just see if you can't learn something from his brilliantly intelligent and exceedingly perceptive answers.

[@Jim54_]

M K I study Law in University, and in law a man who is not of sound mind is not considered a reputable source of information and advice. That is the underlying point I was making

[@MK-sx3bm]

@@Jim54_ You may call a witness and discredit his statement on the basis that he's not himself credible. All that is advocacy, persuasion. It doesn't make the statement of the witness true or false. When you have nothing else to go on and you can only rely on witnesses then that may be crucial. When you have a proposition in front of you concerning the real world you don't have merely the origin of the statement and their character, you also have your own judgement and your eyes and ears and brain to check whether the statement reflects on the world as you see it. To say that if someone's morals are bad therefore his ideas are bad is simply a logical fallacy as you well know. Try Philosophy, not Law, if you want to defend your point ;)

[@Jim54_]

M K Philosophy is awash with many different ideas about how society should function, but it is the law and the people who make the laws on behalf of the public who have to create a perfect balance of practical ideas that are capable of being enforced in the real world. Its far easier to write something and hope it will work, like philosophers do, but putting that material into practice and making it work is a different matter. Just as the saying goes ‘actions speaks louder than words’ 😉

[@MK-sx3bm]

@@Jim54_ Haha, well, as a lawyer I'm sure you know that there's a great difference between what's legal and what's moral. Philosophy is not about impractical stuff btw, it's about reasoning, evidence, ways of thinking and many more things than certainly I at any rate am able to mention right now. It's not a bad saying that actions speak louder than words, but as an even better saying goes: "the value of an idea has nothing to do with the sincerity of the man who expresses it". You can distrust Norman all you want, no one can stop you from disbelieving him, but were you to be sat before him there next to Martin you wouldn't employ ad hominem attacks against him to try to show how what he's saying is wrong. That just wouldn't work against any prosecution lawyer nor against any philosophically-minded individual who knows an ad hominem when he sees one. Thinking and arguing honestly means tackling the ball, not the man. The law court has its own rules.