Toby Litt

Dont get me started on Toby Litt..... the day he starts to write something of substance, I might have another glance. He is soooooo eager to be experimental, its appalling... i mean.. i like experimental.. experimental is GOOD.... i love it when i read a book that has a quirkiness, or a hook that gets you, and makes you surprised.. but as i said before about Litt, just being experimental is not enough. Exhibitionism, read like a "Oooh look how clever i am!!!!!" selection of stories - take the unusual typefaces, or the roll on sentences out, and you are left with very little indeed. Dont. Dont get me started.

He thinks highly of you too, L

Allegedly, his sister has got three huge boobs. One is her brother.

I've worked thru my rage now - finished the novel this lunchtime, spewed it all out on the page and have posted a review on Bookmunch which you can see here: www.bookmunch.co.uk

Surely, the whole point in an experimental novel is that it takes risks? What the bejesus is the point in an experimental novel that's just 'quirky' or merely contains a 'hook'? Sounds like the man's doing his job properly and *you* guys have entered into a bad relationship with the text! Kinda like when two otherwise pleasant people meet, and immediately hate each other. Haven't read the review yet, but most of your statements seem to be half-heartedly spun compliments! eg. Put-down: "On the one hand he wants to be experimental...and on the other he's desperate to be Henry James - and one does battle with the other." Plug: "Litt mixes experimentation with elements of Henry James - the one reacts against the other." Unless you've actually spoken to Litt, Peter, you must be judging what he 'wants' to be by what he has achieved (if he hasn't achieved it, then how do we know he was aiming for it?) So, in a way, you're saying, he's done what he wanted to do. Which is as much of a compliment as you can give any writer. Put-down: "He is soooooo eager to be experimental, its appalling..." Plug: 'Litt is keen to be experimental, often in a confrontational manner.' Anyway, I'd rather have authors keen to be experimental, than keen to be the next such-and-such a fine British craftsman.

That's a well written review by the way, Peter. Whatever my above argument, it's still nice to read a review that doesn't come out with paragraph after paragraph of trite praise for the author.

Thanks Hen I don't actually have a problem with experimental fiction - not in the least (love Borges, Joyce, Beckett, more recently writers like Steve Aylet and Jeff Vandermeer - his City of Genius and Madmen is WILD) - I just have a problem with writers who wish to be perceived as experimental - so tack on tricks that neither add to or subtract from the book: I just don't think you're experimental because you come up with a clever trick (ie yr not experimental just because you say you are). There's more to it than that. I also think Toby Litt genuinely has a great novel in him. Just this isn't it.

Exactly. I dont have a problem with it eiether (repeats self again) but it has to have something additional to make it work.. for me, I dont see this with Litt...

Well, I'm not sure it is the case with Litt, just because I know people who love him to bits, and not just for being inventive. But even if he is just a man of tricks, isn't there a place for that? I mean, there's enough books read just for the sake of the plot turns or puzzle (mystery/detective stories) and certainly enough that regurgitate the 'something additional' that Litt might lack, but without anything in the least bit clever or innovative. I mean, if an author can combine everything, fine, but if it came to a choice between Litt and the above categories, I know what I want.

And Id be different, and ask for craftsmanship. And Im glad that we disagree, because THAT is what its allll about, isnt it? :o) x

Yup.

Just seen another review in The Telegraph http://www.telegraph.co.uk/arts/main.jhtml?xml=/arts/2003/06/15/bolit215... Oh dear Toby. Oh dear . . .

Looked at this book in Borders yesterday - hmm - it looked annoying with all the crossed out bits.

I don't think Litt is particularly experimental. The tricks he uses have been done before, to judge by "Corpsing". I'm all in favour of experimental writing, but I tend to be irritated by experiments that remain at the level of the language. I'm more interested in experiments at the level of story. The Litt I have read ("Corpsing" and the long short story "The Puritans") plays with genre, so it is to an extent derivative, though Litt might prefer a term like postmodern. I always think it's more difficult to write an effective mystery story or a thriller than to write a parody of a mystery or a thriller, though the latter gets more literary brownie points. d.beswetherick.

Considering the reviews of Toby Litt I've seen, I don't think he gets any such brownie points. Heaven knows how he got onto the Granta when everyone in books seems to dislike him! "I always think it's more difficult to write an effective mystery story or a thriller than to write a parody of a mystery or a thriller." But likewise, it's more difficult to write an effective parody than it is a mystery or thriller. The key is 'effective.' When mystery/thriller writers get going, they seem to be able to hit a happy formula where no one complains about anything they write, even if it's cack. Writers of experimental/parodical fiction seem to have a harder time earning that kind of respect, by the nature of their task - people seem to expect the world to fall down around them. Way I see it, Toby Litt gets told off for doing card tricks while all the other performers are busy juggling - it's not that he's bad at them, but that the audience seem to want more from card tricks.

Erm... read much Toby Litt, have you Hen?

The trouble with "Corpsing" for me was that it was so like a thriller to begin with - despite the slo-mo stylised violent bits - that I was reading it like a thriller, and so became annoyed when it fragmented. I felt the same with "New York Stories" by Paul Auster. I expect this makes me sound naive, but I really did want it to be a bunch of detective stories and not a literary experiment. d.beswetherick.

Well, nothing naive about that. It's just that the impression I get from you, Bez, and Peter Wild is that someone somewhere is hyping Litt up to an offensive degree - 'literary brownie points etc.' I'm confused into a defensive stance because I haven't heard any of this hype - apart from getting on the Granta, I haven't heard anyone who's anyone speak highly of him. At the same time, I have to duck and dive from from the writers that really *are* hyped up, and much more boring than Litt. I've read some, Rokkit - short stories from 'Exhibitionism.' They were quite likeable.

Talking of Auster, one experimental book I really did enjoy was based on some of Auster's ideas in "Leviathan": "Double Game" by Sophie Calle. It's an expensive book because it's full of photos and artworks as well as narratives, and I wouldn't be able to afford a book like that nowadays. It's a gorgeous, original book, and I enjoyed all of it except the bit where she only ate food of one colour for each day of the week, which struck me as over-whimsical. d.beswetherick.

I still like him so screw you all. Beatniks was fun. Deadkidsongs I actually loved and exhibitionism is patchy I admit, but when it's good I think it's really good. Corpsing I haven't finished yet... I am willing to swallow all the experimental stuff because I think it's fun, like a map at the beginning of a book, I really find silly distractions worthwhile and that's regardless of whether Litt considers them silly or not. 'Alphabed' - a short story with a sexual episode for each letter of the alphabet, okay, stupid idea but I don't care; sometimes I want to read something that I don't have to feel in awe of. But I definitely see why people dislike him, it's just my sort of thing.

I haven't read "Deadkidsongs" but the title sends a shiver down my spine, and I hope Litt isn't superstitious. Mahler wrote Kindertotenlieder (Songs for dead Children) and a few years later his own children died. d.beswetherick.

oh.. not so original then. hen, didnt realise you hadnt read Litt. i thought you were a big fan...

Litt got the title from Mahler - he was translating some of the Kindertotenlieder for his site if I remember correctly.

I've read just enough to know what you're all talking about, I think - the visual tricks, eschewing of conventions etc. In truth though, I do tend to leap to the defence of any author when there's a harsh judgement passed on them, especially if it's for trying something different. A lot of more conventional authors (and writers in general,) tend to be very self-effacing about their work, often emphasising that they do it for themselves rather than for society - but it seems that anyone who writes anything unconventional is quickly assumed to be trying to make an impact/make you like him etc. If people are allowed to write rather backwardly and be left in peace, why are we more judgemental towards people who essentially have a different taste? I suppose it also hits the same nerve the whole secret agent thread thing - throughout that thread I had a crock of people saying my problem was that I 'tried too hard.' It seems there's an incredible resistance to accepting an author who writes in a slightly less reader-friendly kind of way simply has different tastes, is a different person - they must, the logic goes, have been trying to knock us. Ergo, they must think they're pretty clever. This gets to me because I immediately see the potential for it to go deeper - what if people started assuming I was making some statement by reading and listening to what I liked? It happens - I've seen an article or two claiming that the only reason anyone goes to see indie films is because they want to look brainier (and not, for example, because most mainstream films are crap enough to make you curl up on the pavement and cry.) Also, bear in mind I have the same problem with Radiohead that you have with Litt (except a couple of songs which are quite pretty,) so I understand how irritating it can be when people wax lyrical about the wonders of something you don't 'get.' But as I say, this affliction seems to strike Radiohead much more than Litt, whose sole advocates seem to be Spack and Beef.

But i think that one of the problems with Litt, is that i *do* get him... i just (personally) dont see anything, that makes me actually think at all... if i could just find one teeny thing to latch onto, and say YES! By GOD thats so GOOD! It works on so many levels its... its... its....fab! But it doesnt.. and i almost weep in frustration. I took Exhibitionism into the bath the other night after looking at this thread again, give the guy another go, there were two i didnt read previously.. but - no. Its faulty and transparent Hen.. do try again, have a good long look. Tell me, that you really think, that this is new, fresh, inspriring greatness... cos i dont think it is. I wish it WAS! It feels like the emporers new clothes to me. i definitely dont get radiohead though...

I'll ask if I can borrow the book next time I see Spack. I read through Alphabed, the slideshow one, and something else before. No, I didn't think it was 'new, fresh, inspiring greatness' but nor did I think it was mediocre. I thought it was interesting, and pretty enjoyable - I don't know if I could get through a novel of it, but most novels only hold my attention for the first few lines anyway. Now, if Litt wrote Barthesesque essays on why the modern novel is a slushpile and how he was attempting to be at the forefront of culture, blowing people's minds, I would say he's deluding himself. But if he just likes to try out obscure ways of presenting stories, and is more interested in that than characterisation, then I don't think he has to justify it. A lot of people like style over substance - a lot of people, I suppose, don't really want their fiction to be giving them moral messages, or trying to get at their emotions. The other thing is, you can criticise Litt with criteria, saying he's missing something etc. but I'm very much aware that this can be done with most authors. I knew someone who disliked Kurt Vonnegut in a similar way - saying he just knocked out catchphrases, drew pictures and moaned about the state of the world - no real plots or characterisation, no substance. I can't really disagree - a lot of Vonnegut is catchphrases, one liners, unqualified knick-knacks. He still feels to me like the most important author I've ever read. I can see why Radiohead are clever, obscure, strange, and even quite brave - I just don't see the 'beauty' part. For me, they occasionally verge on 'pretty.' If I thought that everyone else was just going gaga over the 'clever' part, and didn't see anything I didn't see, then I'd be in a very depressed state about humanity.

<> Yes.. thats how Litt makes me feel. When i see the critics raving, i just think.. man.. what hope is there for literature...

But maybe these critics (and I still haven't found any raving over Litt!) do see more in him than you - and probably me - just like music critics and fans obviously see more in Radiohead. You've gotta conclude that it's you who're missing out - otherwise you're surely accusing people who do like Litt/Radiohead of being shallow, missing the point etc. I mean, there's a hell of a lot of stuff I don't 'get' in this way - I can see what so-and-so has done, agree that it's quite clever/technically accomplished/inventive, and yet it feels empty to me. Add the Matrix movies to the list - somewhere in between Ghost in the Shell (the main influence on the Matrix, and a film I really like,) and the Matrix, I stopped 'getting' it. The result is two very similar films, one of which feels like a pointless, derivative tribute to the other. Doesn't stop hoardes of people liking it. Or Harry Potter - you've lost me there as well. Or following football. Or most classical music. It all works the same way. There's so much that seems to be all artifice and no heart that I'd be mad to conclude everyone else was just not as sensitive as me. Surely, you've got to add Toby Litt to your own list?

I cant believe you havent read him to any extent, yet you are adding yourself into a list that would see more in him, than me. Why is that Hen?

arg i misread excuse my arseholishness - i am without nictotine, see gen diss.

Well, even if I were....I'm sure someone who hadn't heard any Radiohead before in their life could listen to just a snatch, and get something I haven't got from having been forced to listen to every album through my walls for years. That's just how these things work - how much you 'get' someone doesn't necessarily corrolate in any way to how much you know of them, or have experienced them - although in some cases things do, of course, 'grow' on you, as we say. So I might have been saying what you thought I was saying and still make sense, if you get what I'm saying. ;-)

Piss off then. *uses lack of nicotine as an excuse for rudeness* ;o)

Deadkidsongs. Deadkidsongs. Deadkidsongs. IT's his best that i've read. I swear it's brilliant.. who's read it? I can't believe anybody would think it total @!#$...