The 2005 Faces and Places reading circles continued with Tibor Fisher reading from his latest novel Voyage to the End of the Room in Budapest, Miskolc, Salgótarján and Debrecen. Ágnes Györke interviewed him.
When you edited New Writing 8 with Lawrence Norfolk, did you find this the case? Did you discover many unpublished talented writers?
Editing New Writing 8 was quite easy. Both Lawrence and I were terrified that we'd have to read a lot of rubbish; in fact there was only a handful of truly execrable manuscripts. What we did get a lot of was perfectly well-produced pieces, nicely laid out, correctly spelt, clearly thought-out, but which left nothing behind. Talent spotting, I think, is simple. If you have to ask yourself a question such as "Is this any good?" then the answer is probably no. Good writing stands out. We debuted four writers in NW8 and three of them, David Mitchell, Hari Kunzru and Dan Rhodes have already had considerable international success, and I still have high hopes for Alex Moseley.
Let’s talk about your novels. Under the Frog is usually the favourite one among critics. Do you see why?
I'm not sure Under The Frog is the critics' favourite. It's certainly very popular with readers, but my guess is that its success is to do with it being a very conventional novel. My other novels are stranger and written in a mannered style, which is automatically going to put some people off. But every book has its fan club. The Thought Gang is popular with men, The Collector Collector with women and Voyage To The End of The Room is a big hit with my friends.
Are you influenced by what reviewers and critics say?
No.
Do you yourself have a favourite novel?
My favourite novel is probably The Catcher in the Rye... with A Clockwork Orange a close second.
Who are some of the writers who in particular influenced you?
Burgess for one. Joyce. Lots of Americans, Tom Wolfe, Tom Robbins, Robert Heinlein, Bernard Malamud, Charles Willeford, and let's not forget Sandor Marai.
After Under the Frog, which is a third person narrative, you have started to use first person narrators, and most of them are quite peculiar (an ex-academic bank robber in The Thought Gang, a bowl in The Collector Collector) Why? Do you see more possibilities in first person narration?
Well, it looks that way. The new novel I'm working on at the moment "Good to be God" is also first person narration. But I can always change my mind.
Do you have a preference for anti-heroes? Eddie Coffin is an obvious example in The Thought Gang, and Gyuri too in the Frog is kind of passive, drifting, opposed to Jadwiga who appears to be full of life. And Oceane too, in the Voyage is disappointed, no longer interested in the world outside.
We could have an interesting discussion to define what an anti-hero is, but let's not. All writers have to have a critical intelligence in order to shape the material they're interested in, but things like character I think are a more visceral, instinctive matter.
In Gyuri’s case I had the feeling that his anti-heroic nature also commented on what you think about “Hungarian mentality”… Especially because of the sharp contrast with the Polish Jadwiga.
Perhaps. Anyone who knows anything about "Eastern Europe" knows that the Poles are the hard nuts of the region. Just look at their war record.
In all of your novels, you seem to prefer a narrative style dominated by digressions, anecdotes, stories within stories within stories. Is that part of your self-conscious writing strategies, or is that how you see the world? Or both?
I can't help myself.
For me, digressions in your novels always seem to parody certain concepts of order. History in the Frog, academic orderliness in The Thought Gang. In the Frog, for instance, despite the chapter titles that suggest a progress in time from 44 till 56, the stories told in the individual chapters move back and forth in time and they create a very personal vision of history that is anything but linear and rational. Does that comment on how you think about history?
To some extent 'time-travel' is characteristic of all novels, all stories. Look at the Illiad.
Why did you choose a female narrator in Voyage to the End of the Room?
I thought it'd be an interesting challenge.
How did this idea evolve into a story? Did you know in the beginning that you would be turning the book into a quest story at the end?
You could argue the idea never evolved into a story. Although, there are lots of events, the scarcity of 'plot' and linear progression disappoints some readers. "Voyage" is perhaps best described as a meditation rather than a straight novel, a conventional novel.
You seem to be interested in the Bridget Jones syndrome: Rosa in the Collector Collector is a typical example of that, and Oceane also struggles with several boyfriends. Is that question lurking in the background in the Voyage as well?
"Personal relationships", sex, love and pursuit are pretty much the foundation of literature.
The novel seems to me very critical about a number of things: London, employers, local government workers, politicians, the police. Compared to what employers “expect” from Oceane in London even the work she does in Barcelona seems to be decent. Did you intend to write a general satire about England?
I've lived in London most of my life and as far as I'm concerned unless you're extremely rich, and I do mean extremely rich, it's no longer worth living there. It's like Somalia, but without the sunshine and much more expensive. Nearly everyone I know wants to leave.
What made you choose place names like Sunk island and Chuuk? Are they real?
They do exist. I've been to both. Everything in "Voyage" is true, even if that's hard to believe.
I liked your references to Hungarian food both in the Frog and the in Voyage – like parliamentary pastry (képviselőfánk). In the Voyage, the Hungarian Roberto wants to investigate the ontological difference between galuska and nokedli. Are you playing with your English readers here? I don’t presume anyone understands what you are talking about.
I'm used to people not understanding me.
| 
