I must say I am mystified by the apparently general opinion that this novel is "hilarious" etc. My old Penguin is adorned by several review quotes to that effect, and the other reviewer here feels that way about it too. You are taken for a trip through a changing English society in the 70s by a consciousness (Jake's) that is itself subject to changing moods and/or judgements and certainly hampered by the rigidification (sometimes called "crustiness") of an aging English male who grew up between the 20s and the 30s. Hardly any of it makes me laugh, though certain shafts of witty observation make me smile, but the various semi-grotesque scenes which Amis makes his protagonist suffer through - very well integrated into a continually absorbing narrative about the world as experienced by Jake - suggest a bitterness and sadness about socially manipulated human frailty that is miles away from knockabout comedy/satire à la Tom Sharpe etc. The figures themselves are also subtly differentiated, being seen in the round with both good and bad elements - for example the "awful" American group "facilitator" is not simply awful, there are nuances involved in his portrayal. Nor is the portrayal of women simply misogynistic, as one might assume from a first acquaintance with Jake's attitudes and/or from what one knows of Amis Sr. One certainly ends up clarifying one's attitudes to certain phenomena, including group therapy, but I don't think the position one takes at the end is a foregone conclusion as it would be in some farcical satire; I find, for instance, the distorted (though not totally fantastic) presentation of women students reflects badly on Jake's (and possibly Amis's) humanity - it certainly does not reflect my own experience. I feel like a sadder and (I hope) a wiser man since re-reading this.