What do you think?
Rate this book
Touching the Starfish
Ashley Stokes's comic masterpiece stars Nathan Flack, a writer exiled in a backwater teaching creative writing to a group of high-maintenance cranks and fantasists. When a very literary ghost by the name of James O'Mailer starts to haunt Flack, he has to ask himself: is he sinking into a nether world of delusion, or is he actually O'Mailer's instrument? Touching the Starfish is a metafictional tour-de-force and hilarious throughout, comparable to Lucky Jim and Tristram Shandy.
536 pages, Paperback
First published February 1, 2010
13 people want to read
About the author
Ashley Stokes
30 books49 followersAshley Stokes is the author of Gigantic (Unsung Stories, 2021), The Syllabus of Errors (Unthank Books, 2013) and Voice (TLC Press, 2019), and editor of the Unthology series and The End: Fifteen Endings to Fifteen Paintings (Unthank Books, 2016). His recent short fiction includes Subtemple in Black Static; The Validations in Nightscript, Black Slab in The Ghastling; Replacement Bus Service in Out of Darkness (edited by Dan Coxon, Unsung Stories), and Fade to Black in This is not a Horror Story (edited by JD Keown, Night Terror Novels). Other stories have appeared in Tales from the Shadow Booth Vol. 4, BFS Horizons, Bare Fiction, The Lonely Crowd, the Warwick Review, Storgy and more. He lives in the East of England where he’s a ghost and ghostwriter.
"Touching the Starfish is a very funny and accessible book. It is a fine first novel." Eastern Daily Press.
"Lovers of mitteleuropa period fiction, or of contemporary fiction, or – ideally – both, will love this book. It’s Joseph Roth meets Roberto Bolaño, and it is simply wonderful." David Rose on The Syllabus of Errors.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 9 of 9 reviews
November 7, 2015
As an ardent connoisseur of metafiction (and fumbling practitioner), I have high standards for the self-reflexive art. This 2010 novel from a former CW tutor at East Anglia and current editor at Unthank School of Writing (Unthank Books published this novel), is a massive letdown for a premise that seems promising. Split into various sections of common shibboleths among CW tutors: ‘How to Begin’, ‘Show Don’t Tell’, and so on, the novel concerns the fortunes of author stand-in Nathan Flack and his attempts to corral a class of no-hope writers manqué. Opening with hilarious eviscerations of the often bizarre miscreants who populate after-work writing classes, the novel then begins its aimless stagger into Flack’s tedious existence: as the archetypal put-upon writer, Flack is no failure: three prior published works, adoring ex Frances Mink (a poet with Louise Brooks hair), and connections in London (referred to as “The Arctic”), although his own railings against commercial fiction (where were his three novels published?) dominate the novel. Here’s the novel’s fundamental problem. It is hard to accept a work railing against the middlebrow marketplace if the prose is lacklustre, lacking an editorial leash, and couched within a conventional sequence of dialogue and description. It has no pulpit from which to pontificate: the prose must be pristine and professional. The characters become broad comic types: a loudmouth ‘lad’ writer whose unedited prose becomes successful; a ludicrous Middle-Englander who is a bag of contrived comedic characteristics; an over-the-top poet-cum-psychotic who stalks the characters and repeats a silly catchphrase; and various female vixens who (I will assume) the author made lust after Flack in a knowing manner. The novel strains to be amusing: each person has a wacky nickname or backstory, or talks in slick zingers, and certain humorous words are reused and repeated too often, and sentences are packed too tight with funnies, and even worse, continual references to cool bands and books the writer likes. The metafictional aspect involves James O’Mailer: Flack’s epitome of the perfect writer, a voice that comes to haunt the narrative and torment the reader with more inflated footnotes (and there are footnotes in abundance), and that labours under prose that reaches for cleverness. Reaching for Cleverness might be an alternative title. If this sounds mean then consider Flack’s approach to his students’ writing. A brutal critique is what every reader needs to improve the craft. Even the published ones. And this writer needs to read some O’Brien and Sorrentino. Stat. (Note: Bailed on p.330).
December 26, 2011
The blurb described this book as an hilarious, meta-fictional tour-de-force.
The main character is called Nathan Flack. He is a writer and a night school Creative Writing Teacher. His colleague and ex-girlfriend Frances Mink, has devised a system of stereotyping the night school students into the Major or Minor Arcana of ‘folder-holders’, a system which Flack has also adopted and the book begins as they watch students arrive for the first class. They label all the students they see as different Major Arcana characters, who all turn out to be Flack’s students.
There is a sub-plot involving a character called James O’Mailer, whom Flack believes is a ghost who is haunting him, but also seems to represent his flagging writing talent, who then turns into a character who is involved in a battle to save the universe on an alternative plane of existence which crashes through into Flack’s world during the Creative Writing Residential. O’Mailer’s story is originally told by use of footnotes, some of which are so long that you lose the thread of the original story while reading them, but then spreads into the main text.
There is also a theme of Flack’s personal life running through the book, with large chunks of details about a previous relationship, his efforts to finish his relationship with Frances and the beginnings of a relationship with one of his students, Dr Jane. All this is occurring as he is trying to forward his own writing career, and getting rejected by publishing companies. One of his students gains a publishing contract during the writing course, of which Flack is completely disbelieving as he does not consider the student to be a good enough writer, then completely jealous when this is proved to be true and calls into question Flack’s job security.
There is also a large section devoted to instructions relating to a dice based role playing game reflecting Flack’s life.
The starfish of the title is given to Flack by an ex-girlfriend, and he uses it within his lessons. This is then purloined by one of his students and another theme relates to his obsession to retrieve it as he blames his lack of ability to write on its absence.
All in all there are so many threads to follow that none have time or space to be developed, and events seem to happen pretty randomly. The various ideas would be a good basis for separate books. A whole series could be written regarding the night school pupils, using just one or two of the ‘Major Arcana’ in each one. A book concentrating on Flack’s love life would allow the character to be more sympathetic and rounded, rather than one who is totally self centred with an apparent history of sponging off his girlfriends.
To follow the creative writing theme, each main section starts with a suggestion such as ‘Never raise the reader’s expectation that something significant is about to happen and then deflate that expectation for no good reason’. These would seem to be valid points although these suggestions do not seem to be followed in the book.
On the whole, I found this book disappointing, as the various themes had potential, but while all are squashed into the same book none are fully developed. The final part of the book involves events a long time after the beginning and seems to be there simply to tie up some of the loose threads into a neat ending, which seems a bit strange after the chaos of the main body of the story. However, it could just be there to go against the suggestion of ‘I’d never advise ending a novel with a neat and convenient coincidence’.
The main character is called Nathan Flack. He is a writer and a night school Creative Writing Teacher. His colleague and ex-girlfriend Frances Mink, has devised a system of stereotyping the night school students into the Major or Minor Arcana of ‘folder-holders’, a system which Flack has also adopted and the book begins as they watch students arrive for the first class. They label all the students they see as different Major Arcana characters, who all turn out to be Flack’s students.
There is a sub-plot involving a character called James O’Mailer, whom Flack believes is a ghost who is haunting him, but also seems to represent his flagging writing talent, who then turns into a character who is involved in a battle to save the universe on an alternative plane of existence which crashes through into Flack’s world during the Creative Writing Residential. O’Mailer’s story is originally told by use of footnotes, some of which are so long that you lose the thread of the original story while reading them, but then spreads into the main text.
There is also a theme of Flack’s personal life running through the book, with large chunks of details about a previous relationship, his efforts to finish his relationship with Frances and the beginnings of a relationship with one of his students, Dr Jane. All this is occurring as he is trying to forward his own writing career, and getting rejected by publishing companies. One of his students gains a publishing contract during the writing course, of which Flack is completely disbelieving as he does not consider the student to be a good enough writer, then completely jealous when this is proved to be true and calls into question Flack’s job security.
There is also a large section devoted to instructions relating to a dice based role playing game reflecting Flack’s life.
The starfish of the title is given to Flack by an ex-girlfriend, and he uses it within his lessons. This is then purloined by one of his students and another theme relates to his obsession to retrieve it as he blames his lack of ability to write on its absence.
All in all there are so many threads to follow that none have time or space to be developed, and events seem to happen pretty randomly. The various ideas would be a good basis for separate books. A whole series could be written regarding the night school pupils, using just one or two of the ‘Major Arcana’ in each one. A book concentrating on Flack’s love life would allow the character to be more sympathetic and rounded, rather than one who is totally self centred with an apparent history of sponging off his girlfriends.
To follow the creative writing theme, each main section starts with a suggestion such as ‘Never raise the reader’s expectation that something significant is about to happen and then deflate that expectation for no good reason’. These would seem to be valid points although these suggestions do not seem to be followed in the book.
On the whole, I found this book disappointing, as the various themes had potential, but while all are squashed into the same book none are fully developed. The final part of the book involves events a long time after the beginning and seems to be there simply to tie up some of the loose threads into a neat ending, which seems a bit strange after the chaos of the main body of the story. However, it could just be there to go against the suggestion of ‘I’d never advise ending a novel with a neat and convenient coincidence’.
November 23, 2014
Brilliant stuff! Nathan Flack is a writer exiled in a backwater, teaching creative writing to a group of moon-barkers, grammar-stammerers, wrong-roomers, sensitive plants, literature deniers and romantic typists. 'Lucky Jim' meets 'A Heartbreaking Work of Staggering Genius'. A hilarious metafictional satire on the miseries, humiliations and frustrated hubris of the writing life. A must-read for fiction writers; an eye-opener for fiction readers. Hilarious, honest, deadly accurate, and engrossing despite its baggy length and longueurs. An inspired editor could reduce this to a masterpiece.
(Some copy-editing also needed: the grammar-stammerer in me wants Stokes (or his editor) to learn how to spell ‘lightning’ and ‘liaise’, to read up about parenthetical commas, and to understand that ‘may’ and ‘might’ are present and past tense and not interchangeable.)
(Some copy-editing also needed: the grammar-stammerer in me wants Stokes (or his editor) to learn how to spell ‘lightning’ and ‘liaise’, to read up about parenthetical commas, and to understand that ‘may’ and ‘might’ are present and past tense and not interchangeable.)
August 2, 2014
This book has a lot of potential, and maybe if my life weren't so full as it is, I will be able to finish it another time. It's very dense, and I had a hard time keeping a pace with it. I got to where I felt like I had to read it, which made me less inclined to pick it up when I had a few minutes to read.
Not writing it off completely, but I was seriously unable to finish it.
Not writing it off completely, but I was seriously unable to finish it.
June 24, 2013
Intellectual masturbation. A creative writing teacher writing a story about a creative writing teacher - how imaginative...
December 20, 2012
I have to admit that I thought that the title to Ashley Stokes’ debut novel Touching the Starfish was a bit rude. But it’s not. That’s just me.
So what is Touching the Starfish?
It’s a book for every creative writing lecturer out there. If you ever wanted to write about your experiences in this area, then don’t. It’s been done. And I can’t imagine it being done better than TTS manages to do. There’s plenty of Thank God It’s Not Just Me moments when Nathan Flack, the novel’s protagonist is describing his horrific experiences with his new tutor group. There’s a lot of footnote asides that explain about the Moon-Barkers and Rom-Ts and Wrong-Roomers that inhabit his group.(1) You know what I mean, the ones that would merrily drive you crazy. If you let them.
(1) Put simply, the bonkers, the over-romantics and people who should really be telling it to a therapist type of students.
You might even nick some decent writing exercises.
Still, it’s not just a book about teaching creative writing. It’s a book for every jaded writer who still has nostalgia for bookshops; the desire to find something to read that feeds you, the ones you relish, as opposed to the 3for2s; the Importance of Any Email / Post / Unexpected phone call which could be The One.
But it’s also bloody, and often unexpectedly, funny. Don’t read it in front of anyone. Read it on your own so you can choke on your own laughter, finally get it out, and start barking unapologetically. Something writers don’t do enough of I think (again, that could just be me). (2)
(2) You may discover you have some different laughs, too. I noted a squeaky one that I wasn’t aware of till now.
All this might suggest the book is a bit flippant. It’s just superficial, surface stuff poking fun at writers and students and whatnot. But Flack is haunted, perhaps by his inner psychology/destructive self-critic, perhaps by a Moon-Barker, or something even more sinister. Flack also admits to the fact that he writes to be close to other people, a simple and sensitive truth that perhaps many writers would agree with. We write to explore, to understand and, perhaps, to connect. Coupled with the fact that Flack’s doing his damnedest to avoid intimacy with an ‘impossibly beautiful’ albeit slightly difficult ex girlfriend, this starts to get really interesting. And the writing is brilliantly observed with nourishing, juicy detail that, if you are a writer, you will nod at and perhaps be slightly jealous (while still inspired to write).
Case in point:
A cafetiere cooled on the coffee table and, underscored by crackles on the vinyl, Miles Davis’ Kind of Blue swam around the tangerine walls. (3)
(3) I’ve heard reviews are supposed to be balanced: Okay. I would have liked it to be ever so slightly pacier. Maybe less of the group to start with. The footnotes work mostly, sometimes brilliantly, but sometimes disrupt the pace.
But enough about why a writer might like it. Here’s why readers will read:
Who is the inner voice that speaks to Nathan? Who is the shadowy figure staring into his flat at night? Will he solve all his problems, sell his book and live happily ever after?
I read this book in a couple of days. It gave this rather jaded writer who unfortunately seems to read for a living, as opposed to writing, back that compulsion to devour. To look forward to going back to the book. To wish people would leave so you can – Get Back to the Book. For me, a rare and actual page-turner.
So what is Touching the Starfish?
It’s a book for every creative writing lecturer out there. If you ever wanted to write about your experiences in this area, then don’t. It’s been done. And I can’t imagine it being done better than TTS manages to do. There’s plenty of Thank God It’s Not Just Me moments when Nathan Flack, the novel’s protagonist is describing his horrific experiences with his new tutor group. There’s a lot of footnote asides that explain about the Moon-Barkers and Rom-Ts and Wrong-Roomers that inhabit his group.(1) You know what I mean, the ones that would merrily drive you crazy. If you let them.
(1) Put simply, the bonkers, the over-romantics and people who should really be telling it to a therapist type of students.
You might even nick some decent writing exercises.
Still, it’s not just a book about teaching creative writing. It’s a book for every jaded writer who still has nostalgia for bookshops; the desire to find something to read that feeds you, the ones you relish, as opposed to the 3for2s; the Importance of Any Email / Post / Unexpected phone call which could be The One.
But it’s also bloody, and often unexpectedly, funny. Don’t read it in front of anyone. Read it on your own so you can choke on your own laughter, finally get it out, and start barking unapologetically. Something writers don’t do enough of I think (again, that could just be me). (2)
(2) You may discover you have some different laughs, too. I noted a squeaky one that I wasn’t aware of till now.
All this might suggest the book is a bit flippant. It’s just superficial, surface stuff poking fun at writers and students and whatnot. But Flack is haunted, perhaps by his inner psychology/destructive self-critic, perhaps by a Moon-Barker, or something even more sinister. Flack also admits to the fact that he writes to be close to other people, a simple and sensitive truth that perhaps many writers would agree with. We write to explore, to understand and, perhaps, to connect. Coupled with the fact that Flack’s doing his damnedest to avoid intimacy with an ‘impossibly beautiful’ albeit slightly difficult ex girlfriend, this starts to get really interesting. And the writing is brilliantly observed with nourishing, juicy detail that, if you are a writer, you will nod at and perhaps be slightly jealous (while still inspired to write).
Case in point:
A cafetiere cooled on the coffee table and, underscored by crackles on the vinyl, Miles Davis’ Kind of Blue swam around the tangerine walls. (3)
(3) I’ve heard reviews are supposed to be balanced: Okay. I would have liked it to be ever so slightly pacier. Maybe less of the group to start with. The footnotes work mostly, sometimes brilliantly, but sometimes disrupt the pace.
But enough about why a writer might like it. Here’s why readers will read:
Who is the inner voice that speaks to Nathan? Who is the shadowy figure staring into his flat at night? Will he solve all his problems, sell his book and live happily ever after?
I read this book in a couple of days. It gave this rather jaded writer who unfortunately seems to read for a living, as opposed to writing, back that compulsion to devour. To look forward to going back to the book. To wish people would leave so you can – Get Back to the Book. For me, a rare and actual page-turner.
April 13, 2015
This is a very funny novel. I think it also has some serious points to make about creativity and the world of 'creative writing' (both being a student and a teacher thereof), as well as the publishing 'industry' at large. There are some amazingly inventive set-pieces, as well as a passage fairly late in the novel that I found very touching. Some of the characters are grotesques, but strangely believable for that, as you are simply invited to accept the bizarre twists and turns of the plot, and how these impact upon the central character, Nathan Flack. A most enjoyable read. Witty, sometimes surreal, and never less than hugely entertaining.
June 29, 2015
This peculiar novel was selected by an on/off member of our book club. A month later, those of us who persevered past the midway point had little positivity to share. The general consensus was that it was tediously dull and indulgent, with several of us commenting on the ugly undercurrent of intellectual and social snobbery it promotes.
September 2, 2012
Very funny in parts, but way too long and too many subplots. Enjoyed the first 300 pages more than the last 230 or so.
Displaying 1 - 9 of 9 reviews