Giles Coren’s Winkler
by Shane Barry
I have only myself to blame. After I read the e-mail rant heard around the world, my curiosity got the better of me when I spotted a copy of Giles Coren’s first novel, Winkler, on the shelves of my local library. When I say “novel”, I should point out that Coren’s book is not really a fully evolved specimen of the genre. Rather, like some snakes with vestigial legs, Winkler exhibits only underdeveloped, novel-like features: an eponymous anti-hero around whom the “free indirect style” narration revolves somewhat queasily; a plot (or rather several story threads that flutter in the narrative’s slipstream); and what might be described as the hangover from the novel’s efflorescence in the hard-grafting 18th century: a moral viewpoint.
Coren’s stab at the last item in that laundry list is perhaps the most baffling aspect of Winkler. For most of the book the insights we are given into the mind of Wink—as the charmless 29-year-old central character is occasionally monikered—suggest a consciousness and aesthetic sense largely derived from the cuttings of lads’ mags (from Loaded (is that still going?) to the loftier realms of GQ and Esquire). So fat chicks, the ethnic proletariat, and the grubbiness of urban life are given short shrift. And you might have thought the death of Kingsley Amis also sounded the death knell of a certain kind of English novel: the sort in which characters from the “provinces” (or the lower classes) are considered inherently absurd because their speech pattern deviates from the metropolitan middle-class norm. But Coren has exhumed the maggoty corpse of English “social comedy” and it’s not pretty: For instance, Winkler’s Belfast-born girlfriend’s speech is rendered phonetically so “fockn” seems to be only form of communication the Ulster simian can handle. And the criminal Uncle Bill who turns up like a bad penny at critical junctures in Wink’s existence sounds laughably like Fagin from Oliver Twist!
Rubbing against the pseudo-egalitarian grain of the times, Winkler even seems to make the rather surprising assertion that the rich, as well as having much more money than the poor, are also much nicer. Wink undergoes this Damascene conversion while temporarily shacked up with a bunch drug-addled old Etonians, who attempt to mask (but instead exaggerate) their well-born origins through Tim Westwood-style “gangsta” patter.
Squeezing all the the air out from this froth, and this is where Winkler veers from the merely unexceptional into truly disastrous, is the burden of Winkler’s growing awareness of his Jewish identity—and, yes, cover your eyes now—this journey of self-discovery leads him to the Holocaust. The device Coren uses to shoehorn the horror of the Shoah into what would otherwise be a slice of lifestyle journalism is as creaky as the heading of a pivotal chapter suggests: “The old Jew who lived under the stairs.”
The lurid revelations of inhumanity both endured and meted out by Wallenstein—the old Jew who lives under the stairs—causes something funny to happen in Wink’s brain. He abandons his dull job, dumps his saggy-arsed girlfriend, moves in with the aforementioned Old Etonians, and has great, albeit unconventional sex with an Australian Amazon named Albuquerque (the descriptions of his “Zorro” impersonation with the kinky Aussie earned Coren the not hugely coveted Bad Sex Award from the Literary Review.)
By the way, Wink also masturbates in front of a blind woman, is later falsely accused of that woman’s murder, and pushes another woman under a Tube train. But the last incident is an accident and anyway, she was fat and not very bright.
By the end of this ugly book I was left with the sense that Coren’s initial foray into fiction corroborated the unflattering profile that emerged from the profanity-strewn e-mail that first piqued my interest. Perhaps overly irritated at the time wasted on this disposable work, I felt like calling the author a word that he himself seems excessively fond of. My sense of decorum prevents me from saying anything more than confirming that it ends with a T. And starts with C. And rhymes with blunt.
Tags: bad sex, english novel, Giles Coren, kingsley amis, social comedy, thumbs down



















July 7th, 2009 at 10:33 am
dear shane, mr barry, whichever,
I came upon this review of yours by chance, shamelessly self-googling looking for an old article to rip-off. like most people with (laboriously) regular paid comment work, I have never really had time to get involved in the blogosphere - and for someone like me it’s pretty unrewarding anyway, since, while there are probably no more than a few hundred thousand people around who think i’m a cunt, the net can make it seem like billions. (that said, i am sure there are also truly very few women who want to sleep with me because i am in the telly, but the net does the same job with them of illusorily inflating their numbers, and makes me feel grotesquely sexually embattled).
i only really want to say that your review was quite a revelation to me in being both excruciatingly ‘bad’ (in the sense of your evident detestation of my book) and also entirely fair.
i got a very mixed bag of reviews - from the preposterously enthusiastic to some not far off yours in tone - and i told people who asked that i really, really didn’t mind what people wrote as long as they appeared to have read it more or less properly (hard when you hate a thing, i know, but important if you are going to comment publicly) and didn’t have some massively obvious axe to grind. I got great reviews by authors i know personally and like, which made them, obviously, less valuable (utterly pointless in some ways, for me) and bad ones by old enemies (ditto), some of whom had not read the whole book (the give away was always failing to have got to the bit where wallenstein turns out to have been lying.)
your review makes me feel entirely honest about having said that i don’t mind a bad review if it’s honest. Yours is, obviously, a proper stinker. but it left me with no sad feeling at all. no anger. because it’s an honest and totally defensible position. you’re basically entirely right about the book, throughout. it’s just that i think it’s better than that. that’s all. and i sort of would, wouldn’t i?or i wouldn’t have pissed away two years of my life writing it.
gah, and now i’ve wasted 400 words unpaid when i’m supposed to be sitting here writing a column by lunchtime. leading me to arrive at exaxtly the same conclusion about my self that you did. namely, that i’m a total cunt.
all the best,
giles