TurkFist's World..part 3

By : Icarus
Views : 525

Erudition falters. Stranger is that: “Despite the fact that she was a destructive force this was the woman that men wanted most; not the passive porcelain oriental beauties that some feminists think men seek ” (Email from the author)

The stories in which Nam appear are, apart from desultory references on Thailandstories.com, confined to Thai 360.com and unfinished. At times carelessly written, badly constructed even incoherent with a Dostoevskian untidiness, they are however mercilessly successful, keel hauling us through the viscous liquid of the collective unconscious to create an anti-heroine for the insanity of our times

An approximate chronology. Notwithstanding horrific anecdotes about her past Turk becomes fascinated by Nam, who is pure evil. Men beat him up expertly, possibly at her instigation then she succours him in hospital. She leads him to a house somewhere outside Bangkok, scene to a fauna of violences redolent of the “Story of O”. Another night after a typically chaotic, emotionally sadistic bar evening she turns up at his door primed for cohabitation but then goes out to tryst a customer almost immediately. Interweaved is a climactically ferocious subplot about a Polish whore, Yenetchka, who knows Nam. Turkfist the author plays a lesbian card; two women, abusing a customer. A conspicuous lacuna is that Turk and Nam never fuck.

For those who know Thailand the myth making succeeds perhaps partly for banal reasons. Most of us have met a woman at least part Nam, with whom oblivion was sweet and dangerous of a night, and more generally each beer moment on the Cowboy can be your last. In other terms; every old Asia hand is in thrall to an illiberal antibourgeois neo-colonial life nexus (soon to be lugubriously described by an up and coming Lacanian anthropologist!).

But as literature it is much more interesting. While not uniformly so, these stories tend to evoke Bangkok less atmospherically than elsewhere in the Turkfist corpus. Explicitly from the moment the boatman ferries them along "The Klong to Nowhere" (http://www.thai360.com/fbb/showtopic.php?tid/259962/) arriving at a house "like some dilapidated colonial mansion all peeling paintwork and broken shutters", until the end of that story, we are in the gothic exotic historical mind space of a European court with natives, in the Orient. This occidental pedigree is taken further in “Lesbo Action in the Mist” (http://www.thai360.com/fbb/showtopic.php?tid/303936/post/303936/hl// when Yenetchka describes her youth in Poland.

Nam herself, whose mother had been killed on the whim of a customer, is a force of nature rather than a doll who could be fucked and forgot. (selective paraphrase of an email from the author)   Through her, Turk finds a way to parry his cloying passivity by becoming still less of an entity, and she makes all his other women appear pallid prototypes or simple cul de sacs. Her use for him vindicates his self-loathing and fulfils his wounds. There is safety too in her preponderant strength and evil, meaning he will never have to love her, nor ever be troubled by her pathos or showing weakness and so presenting him with a disastrous reflection of his own clay. As the nurturing form of the meaningless perversity of life ultimately she is Thanatos, who will satisfy both his superficial urge to transgress and deepest yearning to return to inorganism

There is some very fine writing too. In the early part of “When Worlds Collide”(http://www.thai360.com/fbb/showtopic.php?tid/268031/post/268031/hl//) Turk’s description of the Bangkok sky would make Freud smile with sly satisfaction. The clunkiness of the end of this dream motif “When I woke up I knew I had to see Nam." is so inexorably right. What follows are eight hundred words of superb description of Turk’s journey from his Condo to Soi cowboy, with peerless nuggets such as:

"Pay wat farang? The farang temple. In other words the bar. Most of the kids here were the kids of prostitutes. They all had the nature of the farang male, and most Thai males come to think of it, down pat. We worshipped at the bar. The bar was our religion. The bar got a tithe of all we earned."

Nam does not exhaust the darkness. “The Groin Tingling Allure of Evil Women.” (http://www.thailandstories.com/article/mature/the-groin-tingling-allure-of-evil-women.html) finishes with rare semiotic caprice, Turkfist writing as a post modern authorial deity. After recounting a routine butchery two people talk:

“And actually, come to think of it, I can think of at least one girl who might quite happily torture you to death. That crazy girl you used to know. What really happened between you two?”

“Come on. I know you read it all.”

“Yeah. But that was while it was all still going on. What really happened?

“Really? I don’t know. I only know half the story. When I find out the other half I’ll write it all down. Maybe I’ll publish in some big fat novel using fake names.”

“Like Turk Fist?”

“What are you talking about? Turk Fist is my real name.”

“Yeah… And my name is Frank.”

“It is now.”

Rollicking good yarns

 

© Icarus. All rights reserved by the author.


Like this story? Share it with others: Stumble It! Add to Yahoo! My Web Bookmark to Del.icio.us Bookmark to Furl Spurl This! Add to Reddit Bookmark to Newsvine


Related Articles

» Falangland
» No Further Action
» The VIP
» Therapy
» Gestation Myth
» Arriving
» Jack Golf
» TurkFist's World
» TurkFist's World..part 2
» TurkFist's World...final
» Some Effects of Seclusion
» Min's story.. part 1
» Min's story..final
» The Picture
» Cowboy
» A Stone's Throw in Nong Khai
» Minor Fugue
» Festival notes
» Slight desserts
» The door in the floor
» Some days of Mercedes' autumn
» Sketch for a sexpat
» Occam's Razor

Rating

Teen



Comments / Feedback

Dana
July 6, 2007, 09:03

"At times carelessly written, badly constructed even incoherent with a Dostoevskian untidiness, they are however mercilessly successful, keel hauling us through the viscous liquid of the collective unconscious to create an anti-heroine for the insanity of our times."

Methinks this Icarus is a dangerous fellow with his ability to allure me with an excellent review. Reviews as literature satisfy worldwide with the dense hugely satisfying New York Times Book Review section offering almost voyeur enjoyment peeking into authors' lives and works we will not ever get around to reading on our own. Review as literature here by Icarus reminds me of the enigmatic and now departed Dicer of defunct Mangosauce thread who fascinated me from the start with Thai knowledge and erudite text presentations of complex and interesting ideas. I miss Dicer and if this keeps up I may someday miss Icarus. So persuaded was I by this review by Icarus of trivial work that I decided that if he was placed in solitary confinement for ten years with only my body of work to read that upon release he may possible qualify to review it. But I would shoot us both in the head first.
Chuckwoww
July 6, 2007, 21:27

So Dana is having second thoughts...I told you Icarus was good. Does anybody know the precise point when an extended comment becomes a review?
Marc Holt
July 8, 2007, 08:45

I don't read reviews. They bore me. What's the point of them? I'd rather read the book than some pompous ass expounding on a book or story he has read. Read my stories. I don't care if you like them or loathe them. I write them. That's all.
chuckwoww
July 8, 2007, 10:25

It will be interesting to see if you feel that way about reviewers if and when your book is published.

For myself when 'Losing the Plot' came out I was grateful for any attention I could get. I sent copies to Stickman and David at Mangosauce who were kind enough to take a crack at it, and they certainly weren't pompous. They did both miss the point of the book but it didn't bother me. They helped get the ball rolling. It's since been reviewed on various message boards by total strangers which hasn't hurt sales at all.
Dana
July 9, 2007, 10:29

"They did both miss the point of the book but it didn't bother me."

Sweet Jesus on a cracker why is it always me? Why do I always have to do the heavy lifting? Ok, I'll say it for anyone out there with half a brain. Two people read your book and 'missed the point' and it did not bother you? You labored over format, and text, and phrase, and image, and word choice, and page quality, and cover art and it did not bother you????????????????

You know if someone were to stop me on the street and interview me and ask me what planet I was from I would say Earth. I am not sure about the rest of you and I am particularly not sure about Mr. Woww. Perhaps he is from the planet Loopydo or the planet Compromise or the planet Doesn't Care About Anything.

Recently at the Writer's (and others) Party at the Old Dutch restaurant on Soi Cowboy I was stunned to meet someone named Fanta of Schoocher.com. It turns out that he reads what I write, and he understands what he reads, and he remembers what he understands. He could talk (and we could talk) intelligently and factually about ideas I had espoused, and the craft of presentation, and some of the literary (and other) allusions and tricks used, etc. It was such a pleasure to meet an intelligent fun well read urbane individual who can read and comprehend that I almost felt like shooting him, and stuffing him, and mounting him on the wall above my computer.

But it should not be this way. We should not live in a modern world where the reader of comprehension is such a rare bird. And we should under no circumstances be forgiving or cavalier about the 'reviewer' who read the book and 'missed the point'. No writer who respects writing and respects other writers should ever have this thought or say this thought. Mr. Woww is a traitor to writers.
chuckwoww
July 9, 2007, 11:15

Bollocks. I couldn't care less what Stickman thinks of my writing. Some of the points he made were valid but as a literary critic he's way out of his depth. I did have a long chat with David Mangosauce about it and got him to see the error of his ways.

If writers get their knickers all twisted over what reviewers say they'd never get anything written. I was just responding to Marc Holt's dismissal of reviewers in general which struck me as somewhat amateurish.

I get quite a bit of feedback about 'Losing the Plot'. I've had it called everything from a work of genius to a waste of toilet paper (you know how thoughtful and generous some people can be). People have opinions. I don't take any of it too seriously. There are a few writers whose opinion I would respect but you have to get published by someone like Heineman before you get reviewed by them.


jagoturner
July 9, 2007, 16:19

I have to respond to Mr Holt's comment here. I've written 9 book reviews which are on this site so I guess I'm one of the pompous asses he's talking about.

"I don't read reviews. They bore me. What's the point of them? I'd rather read the book than some pompous ass expounding on a book or story he has read. Read my stories. I don't care if you like them or loathe them. I write them. That's all."

How do you know that something bores you if you don't read it? How do you know that a reviewer is a pompous ass if you've not read him? I can't answer thse questions but I can, possibly, suggest some point to reading reviews.

Reviews are as likely to be entertaining and informative as the books being reviewed. There are some writers who write brilliantly funny and insightful reviews whose novels represent a pinnacle of tedium. The book review section of your sunday broadsheet bristles with some of the best writing you are ever going to read. Maybe in some academic papers reviews may be a maze of theory and footnotes but even here there is fun to be had. It can be interesting to see how someone else has read something that I might have read with my brain in neutral.

Reviews help you narrow in on what you're going to read. I don't know how many books are in print right now. Probably 78 squillion. Much as I enjoy reading I know I'm not going to read all of them. Life is literally too short and I'm a slowish kind of reader. I can make assumptions. I've never read John Grisham and I doubt I'll ever make the effort to read John Grisham despite all the millions of people who love John Grisham books. I might love John Grisham books but I've made an assumption based on nothing other than that the advertising doesn't make his books sound appealing to me. Plus they're really fat books and I find fat books offputting. If, however, I read certain reviewers who made me think my assumptions were off base and that I'd probably love John Grisham books I might just change my mind and give one a go. This isn't to say you would slavishly follow the advice of any reviewer but you can glean from reviewers whether you want to read something.

My last point: I wrote my reviews in 2001 and if I had my time again I might have made them shorter but I'm as happy with those reviews as with many of the stories I've written. I came under some minor flack for filling reviews with personal anecdote. I know this makes me a less professional reviewer and more solipsistic wanker but I feel that when you take in someone else's stories or essays they become a part of your life. It's worth talking about and writing about them just as much as it's worth talking about of life's experiences. By expounding on a book I might just be talking with passion about something that has had a profound effect on my life. In this sense I see little distinction between a book review and a story.
Marc Holt
July 9, 2007, 19:32

"People have opinions. I don't take any of it too seriously."

Precisely. I write because I want/have to. If my book gets published that will be great. And if people actually buy it, that will be a bonus. But I am darned if I'm going to read any reviews of it. If people want to read a review and then not read my book based on the review, then that's two people whose opinion is not worth taking seriously.

Hoist by your own petard, I think, sir!

Amateurish? Well, that's your opinion. For what it's worth.

Marc Holt
July 9, 2007, 19:59

Thank you for your explanation of why you are a reviewer, Jagoturner. I obviously didn't make my point very clearly, did I? You say that will probably never read a John Grisham book, despite millions of people liking them, simply because you don't like the advertising?

You are starting to get my point.

A review is first and foremost the reviewer's subjective opinion of a book. This is why I find reviews such a waste of time. Even if a review is entertaining, it is still not the real thing. I prefer to spend the time that might be wasted on a review actually reading the book and then forming my own opinion.

I appreciate you might feel differently, as you write reviews. I was too harsh calling all reviewers pompous, but I do think it presumptuous to write something in an effort to influence how others might view a work of art.

Writers put a lot of time and effort into creating their works. We write for many reasons. So, to have someone who is unable to fully appreciate the writer's motivation, even if the reviewer thinks he might, give us his personal opinion is a waste of time.

Personally, I like Icarus' short but evocative stories. Why he went to so much trouble to review Turkfist is beyond me.
chuckwoww
July 9, 2007, 21:05

I'm not sure how the hackneyed 'hoist by your own petard' fits the context but if it helps the discussion I'll admit to being in two minds about reviews. Writers are paid by publishers to review each others work, to stimulate debate and to help sell the book. That's why a totally unbiased reviewer probably doesn't exist. Most authors want cheerleaders anyway, not criticism.

I found your blanket dismissal of all reviewers amateurish. Not because I consider myself a professional writer but because reviews are par for the course among professional writers. It's part of the publishing process and authors get used to it. Like you they probably don't read 90% of them...only those by people they respect.

Personally I find it quite flattering that somebody with no axe to grind should take the time and trouble to write something intelligent about my work.
jagoturner
July 10, 2007, 16:22

One of the many other reasons professional writers write reviews is that it's a paying gig. Novel writing (unless you are one of the extremely successful like John Grisham) isn't that lucrative. Writing short stories is even less so. The occasional Sunday supplement review has always been a nice way for known writers to make money. I don't think there are many writers who would turn down the offer of writing a book review because it was somehow against their principles. Actors often have an objection to critics which is partly based on the fact a critic doesn't know what it is to stand on a stage. Writers are among their peers.

As to this question of influence... We are all influenced by the opinion of others in what we read. Sometimes we are not aware of that influence but it happens. You could avoid reviews, book cover blurbs and your friends' opinions but you would still be in the hands of what the publisher saw fit to publish or what your local bookshop or library chose to keep in stock. I can quite understand the view that "Nobody's going to tell me what to do - I'll make my own mind up about everything". If you knew me you'd realise I say this sort of stupid **** more than most but I still read reviews. I like reviews. I don't like slatings or puff pieces but I like to read about how someone else has engaged with a book.

My point about John Grisham, by the way, was picked out at random. There are thousands and thousands of authors I wouldn't read because time is limited and they don't appear to be all that interesting to me to spend twenty-thirty hours reading. They say you can't judge a book by its cover but without further information you really don't have much else to go on. My point was not that a certain kind of reviewer might, just might, make me feel that my judgement of the kind of stories Grisham writes might be off base; that while they are sold in a way that makes them look like cliche ridden page turners there might, in fact, be a depth and sophistication that I don't know about. Of course I'll not know this for sure unless I actually go out and spend the £6.99 and spend the time reading the book itself. But a good review can open your eyes to things you had previously dismissed.

Forgive me if this comes across as patronising but when you said that you don't read reviews because they bore you as a comment on someone else's work I was surprised. Having read and enjoyed your pieces elsewhere on this site I really couldn't believe you'd made such a blanket dismissal of other people's work. It's one thing to disagree with what someone has said but to disagree with anyone saying anything about a particular subject because all discussion of that subject is boring is insane. I'm not a big fan of political opinion pieces but I wouldn't follow an article on Thai politics here with a comment saying "Political pieces bore me. If I want to know about politics I'll buy the party manifesto and form my own opinions. Nobody's going to tell me what to think." If you're interested in books, stories, writing then it's interesting reading what other people have to say about them. If you're not that's absolutely fair enough but you don't have to announce it as a comment on someone else's work.
chuckwoww
July 11, 2007, 20:37

I’d like a couple more kicks at the can before this post vanishes off the bottom of the page into literary limbo…

I said something about Stickman missing the point of my book in his review but it didn’t bother me (much to Dana’s disgust). I don’t think Stick knew what to make of ‘Losing the Plot’. His favorite author is Jake Needham. It wasn’t a bad review…just skimpy and not much depth to it. I agree with Marc Holt that reviews shouldn’t influence people as to whether they read a book or not. But as Jagoturner says there are so many books out there and it’s difficult to avoid being influenced by cover designs, word of mouth etc.. Anyway at the time I was just happy to get my book mentioned on Stick’s website.

I do read reviews. Some of them bore me. A lot of them are just hype. But often they can be a joy to read. There is a lot of point to them if they are thoughtful and well written. It’s fascinating to see a new book by J.G.Ballard for instance, reviewed by somebody like Martin Amis or Toby Litt. Or Julian Barnes on Michel Houellebecq http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2003/07/07/030707crbo_books. To me it’s amazing to see how writers of that caliber put thoughts into words.

I have nothing against reviewers. The pompous ones don’t last long. I’ve written quite a reviews myself…sometimes for money, sometimes for my own amusement. And sometimes for friends…which is the hardest of all because you have to be incredibly diplomatic. As to why Icarus decided to review Turkfist’s stuff…maybe he just liked the challenge?
RSS 2.0: Syndicate this article

Add Comment
* Name


Site



*Image Validation (?)


*Comments / Feedback





Print Article Print Article
Send to a friend Send to a friend
Save as PDF Save as PDF
Rate this Article :

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10
Poor Excellent