‘Nicely punctuated. … Interesting mixture of nouns and adjectives.’

The Yips, by Nicola Barker

I probably wouldn’t have read this but for the #readwomen2014 campaign. I was aware of Barker, but somehow had never been pushed over the edge into actually trying one of her books. Perhaps it’s because she keeps getting longlisted for the Booker, and I don’t hugely rate that prize, or perhaps because I had the mistaken impression that she was a polite author addressing contemporary English middle class concerns.

Well, I can’t speak to her other novels, but The Yips is not polite. Rather, it’s a 550 page funhouse mirror of a book, reflecting back modern Britain but stretched out, distorted, made surreal yet still recognisable. Here’s how it opens:

Stuart Ransom, professional golfer, is drunkenly reeling off an interminable series of stats about the woman’s game in Korea (or the Ladies Game, as he is determined to have it): ‘Don’t scowl at me, beautiful…!’ — directed, with his trademark Yorkshire twinkle, at Jen, who lounges, sullenly, behind the hotel bar. ‘They like to be called ladies. In fact they demand it. I mean …’ Ransom lobs a well-aimed peanut at her — she ducks — and it strikes a lovely, clear note against a Gordon’s Gin bottle. ‘…they are ladies, for Christsakes!’

It’s well past midnight on an oppressively hot and muggy Sunday in July and Ransom is the only remaining customer still cheerfully demanding service from the fine vantage point of his squeaking barstool at the Thistle, a clean but generic hotel which flies its five, proud flags hard up against the multi-storey car park and an especially unforgiving slab of Luton’s Arndale. 

‘But why did you change your booking from the Leaside?’ Jen petulantly demands (as she fishes the stray peanut from its current hidey-hole between the Wild Turkey and the Kahlua). ‘The Leaside’s pure class.’

Stuart Ransom, former wild man of the golf tournament circuit, is in Luton for a sponsored photo-op. His career’s in the rough, the money’s gone and he’s taken to referring to himself in the third person. Jen is a 19-year-old trainee beautician and part-time barmaid, but more than that she’s a consummate bullshit artist, a wind-up merchant, she’s a peroxide-bleached spirit of mischief made attractive flesh.

Gene’s also working bar. As Jen explains, he’s survived terminal cancer seven times (though she may be exaggerating) and is working multiple jobs to pay for facial reconstructive surgery for a daughter disfigured in a terrible car crash. He’s a contemporary secular saint, featured in the newspapers for his fundraising efforts, and he’s modest too preferring to keep quiet about his other claim to fame through his uncle who was a world-renowned palm reader and whose gifts Gene may have inherited.

Stuart tries to get Gene into a conversation about whether “he finds Korean ladies hot”, but Gene isn’t the type to talk about women in that way, explaining that “his assessment of the virtues of Korean women – as a unified class – is based entirely on a series of ill-considered – even stereotypical – ideas he has about Eastern women, and he is sure that this is a little stupid – even patronizing – of him because Korean women are doubtless very idiosyncratic, with their own distinct features and dreams and ideas and habits.”

All those rules about how to write? Just look at that quote in the paragraph above, because Barker doesn’t seem to follow any of them. On most any given page there’ll be hyphens and brackets and ellipses and exclamation marks and italics for emphasis all of them liberally sprinkled through the text and by any reasonable standard it should be an appalling mess, and yet somehow it isn’t. The whole book too is crammed with detail and description, much of it utterly irrelevant though lending a surface patina of brand-name gloss over the banal or idiotic (much like modern Britain in other words).

One of them – shorter, heavier-set, in his shirtsleeves, possessed of a dramatic, dark blond comb-over which flaps up and down like a pedal-bin-lid as he runs – clutches a navy blue, gold-buttoned blazer in his hand. The second gentleman is taller, handsome – something of a dandy – wearing cream loafers, cream trousers, cream trilby (a maroon ribbon circling the brim), an expensive, lavender-coloured polo shirt and heavy, arty, dark grey Yves Saint Laurent-framed glasses. He moves with an exaggerated angularity (knees high, arms thrown out) like a stick figure in a poorly executed flicker-book animation.


The bar scene cuts away to Valentine, an agoraphobic tattoo artist who specialises in natural-seeming tattooed merkins for women who for various reasons don’t have pubic hair of their own. Valentine lives with her mother, who has a form of dementia which causes her to speak partly in French and seems to have triggered personality changes and anger issues as well as causing her to masturbate so incessantly that Valentine has to hide the batteries from the vibrator to prevent her mother hurting herself.

From these characters the book spirals out. There’s Gene’s wife, an Anglican vicar and former feminist who is finding her life increasingly unsatisfying, though her faith in God remains strong (which by the way is incredibly unusual, I don’t recall when I last read a priest character who wasn’t doubting their faith). There’s Stuart’s entourage including his heavily pregnant Jamaican manager who’s one of the last people to believe in him. Later the manager’s sister turns up, an internationally renowned writer on human rights, though before she arrives on the scene we meet a Muslim sex therapist and his ultra-pious wife who converted to the faith.

None of the characters individually are that extraordinary. They’re all larger than life, but any one of them could potentially be the focus of a novel and you probably wouldn’t find them too far fetched. Barker though shovels in character after character, each of them so memorable that despite the massively crowded cast it’s extremely easy to keep track of them.

To the extent The Yips has a plot (and it’s a short extent, you could say it’s “just stuff and then more stuff”) it’s those memorable characters bouncing off each other. Jen is like a self-propelled white cue ball that fires itself down the table causing all the other balls to ricochet around, colliding into each other and ending up in combinations that nobody could have predicted at the start.

The whole thing is a massive Rabelaisian farce. This is a book where at one point Ransome gets into a fight on a giant chessboard, it couldn’t be more artificial, and yet I found myself caring for the characters. Gene seems genuinely a good guy. Ransome isn’t anything of the kind, but you at least become curious what’s going to happen to him. Valentine so clearly deserves better than the desperate situation she finds herself in that it’s hard not to find yourself rooting for her.

Most interesting though is the development of Gene’s wife. First she’s just referred to as a priest, then as “his wife” and only eventually does her name come into view, Sheila. Early on she seems unsympathetic, a drag on Gene who could do better, but the book shifts increasingly to her perspective and her frustrations and passions and the more it does so the more she comes to life, becomes more than priest and wife and becomes Sheila, an actual woman and a character in her own right.

Paralleling this Valentine discovers that she can go outside her home if she wears a niqab and abaya, the traditional Muslim garments covering a woman’s entire face and body. The black cloth becomes a sort of “dowdy, portable, Victorian bathing hut”, a cloth house that allows Valentine to exit the brick one. There’s undercurrents here about the nature of marriage, social restrictions on women, body image, surfaces and concealed interiors, but the points are made lightly and the comic flow isn’t interrupted, or rather is interrupted only enough that the jokes don’t become wearying.

The obvious comparator for all this is Martin Amis, early Martin Amis that is before he became a grand old man of expatriated English letters. Barker herself even makes a shout-out to him at one point: “Jen interrupts her narrative for a second and gazes at the boy, concerned. ‘You do know that girls poo, don’t you? Even extraordinarily beautiful ones like moi?’ ‘Sure.’ He nods, wearily. ‘I read Martin Amis’s Rachel Papers in my final year at primary school …’ He pauses. ‘Not as part of the syllabus, obviously.’”

Barker though writes about a Britain I recognise, one I live in, even if her version of it is distorted for comic effect. Amis doesn’t seem to like that Britain very much, sensing perhaps that it’s left him behind. Besides, Amis couldn’t have written this, because he couldn’t write Muslim characters who were just as absurd and as flawed as any of the other characters, and because Barker’s men persuade me while Amis’s women rarely did (though even so I thought his generally little loved novel Night Train excellent). Perhaps though the real difference is that Amis writes in anger, Barker with amused affection.

When John Self of theayslum reviewed this I said in the comments that I was concerned that it sounded like “spending 550 pages with characters every one of whom … I’d move table in a pub to get away [from].” If I’d read then what I’ve written above now I imagine I’d have said something pretty similar. It’s incredibly hard to review Barker because it really shouldn’t work, all those characters and all that punctuation, and yet it does. It works wonderfully.

John Self’s review is here, and is the one that first alerted me to The Yips. Kevinfromcanada wrote a thoughtful and ultimately less positive review which is here. Anokatony also wrote a rather nice review here, which has a spot-on final quote. If you’re reading this and you’ve written one that I missed please let me know  in the comments, as I’d be delighted to see further thoughts on this.


Filed under Barker, Nicola, Booker

16 responses to “‘Nicely punctuated. … Interesting mixture of nouns and adjectives.’

  1. lonesomereadereric

    I really enjoyed reading your excellent summary, critique of Barker’s writing and pointed quotes from the book. This author is doing something really unique and with such sustained passion in her writing that few other writers are doing today. I think you’re right in the way she captures modern Britain and in a way Amis probably couldn’t do now.
    I read The Yips when it came out and have read only one other book by Barker – Clear: A Transparent Novel. I think one of the aims she’s endevouring to capture in her voluminous prose is our modern attitude to “meaning” and that “meaning” is rarely straightforward in a culture that is so fragmented. You could alight on a number of scenes in this book to argue a point one way or the other, but it also is just stuff and more stuff. It seems rare that an author who writes such long books can do this while also being so entertaining.

  2. Max: I tried to read this and gave up–at the same time I was aware that part of the problem MIGHT be because (not entirely convinced of this argument) that I was reading on the kindle. I put it aside and thought perhaps I’d pick it up later but haven’t so far. Nonetheless, I keep eyeing this author’s books, convinced that I could like one of them…

  3. lonesome, thank you, unique and with sustained passion is a good way of putting it.

    Interesting stuff on the attitude to meaning, which makes sense in the context of this one. Did you find Clear as strong?

    Guy, I read this on kindle so I doubt it was that. I have a colleague who’s been reading this and not enjoying it, and frankly my view is that if you’re not enjoying it by say page 20 you won’t be at page 420. It’s strongly styled, which means that a given reader will either connect to that style or bounce straight off it (which is why I don’t read Lawrence Norfolk for example, his style much as others love it just doesn’t agree with me). If you give her another go I’d suggest a different title, though I don’t know which one.

  4. Max: I just bought In The Approaches. I takes a great deal for me to move on a second novel if the first was a fail, but this one sounded like a lot of fun.

  5. Max – Nicola Barker is one of those authors I know I should try at some point, but something keeps holding me back. I had a look at this one as it happened to be in stock at the library a while back, and I wasn’t convinced that the style would suit me.

    An enlightening review as ever, but I think I’ll pass on this one…perhaps I’ll take a look at another Barker but probably not this year.

  6. I’d say Barker is a bit of an acquired taste — if you can get into her rhythm, her strange approach to prose works well; if you can’t, I imagine she is quite a chore to read. From my experience (I’ve read two others beside The Yips), I think that is typical of all her novels.

    And it is a tribute to her characterization that your review brought back to mind every one of the characters that you mention.

  7. Guy, I’ll look forward to seeing your thoughts in due course.

    Jacqui, the style is Marmite, as Kevin says an acquired taste. The library’s not a bad bet and by page 50 if not sooner you’ll know one way or another. Glad I gave you enough for now though to know you can pass on this one.

    Kevin, definitely, if she connects with you it works well, if not I suspect it’s quite painful. Which were the others you’ve read again? Darkmans I seem to recall and?

    Her characterisation is great, though of course the over the top nature of the characters aids memorability.

  8. Barker is definitely an acquired taste. I thought Darkmans – my first exposure – was pretty much perfect. The Yips is a bit more OTT, purposefully, but still works well. However, immediately after The Yips, I read Wide Open (1998) which doesn’t quite work. I’ve got a friend who read that as his first Barker and swore off her for life.

  9. Darkmans is probably my next, more of the same arguably but then one could say that of Philip Roth (not that I’ve read him still) or many other writers. Perhaps I’ll leave Wide Open a while…

  10. Max: My other two were Darkmans and Wide Open — of the three, I’d say Darkmans is the best.

  11. leroyhunter

    “The whole thing is a massive Rabelaisian farce.”
    My impression – only that, not having read her – is that this is the ur-description of all Barker’s novels. On that basis I’m not massively keen, but your review makes this sounds like a lot of fun Max.

  12. Thanks Kevin, seems there’s a bit of a consensus forming on Wide Open then.

    Leroy, I actually havered over whether to call it Rabelaisian or not, but then I thought – this is a book with a character who compulsively masturbates, a sex therapist, scatological humour in at least one place and lots of action driven by lust or the consequences of lust, and actually it seemed pretty fair.

    I’d say to you as I did Jaqui, read a few pages in the library or a shop and you’ll know very soon whether or not she connects with you. I said page 50, but actually you could probably take a view by page 5, she’s an author with a consistent style.

  13. I almost bought this at the weekend (trip to the new Foyles) on your recommendation. I think what’s put me off before is the books sounded quite whimsical, and that she wrote something about that David Blane guy who lived in a glass box or whatever.

  14. Jeff

    I love this:

    ‘Jen is like a self-propelled white cue ball that fires itself down the table causing all the other balls to ricochet around, colliding into each other and ending up in combinations that nobody could have predicted at the start.’

    It’s a vivid description of vivid descriptions. While it makes sense to me that your vivid description is there to service your review, I can’t help but wonder whether the author’s vivid description does anything more than describe Britain today? Is there anything analytical going on in it?

  15. Laurence, there is a bit of whimsy so it is worth being careful with. I’d say again as I said above, definitely browse before buying. You’ll know really fast if the style works for you or not.

    Jeff, thanks! I’m not sure it’s hugely analytical, it’s more a satire or portrait than analysis, if that makes sense.

  16. Pingback: Looking back on #readwomen2014 and my favourite reads of the year | Pechorin's Journal

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s