Richard

I know. This sits uncomfortably amongst the books that surround it here; it stands out like a Manics' fan at Glastonbury in the days before the invention of that modernist oxymoron, 'festival chic'. But ...Lamp - and Book is nothing if not eclectic. I'd like to take it a step further and say ...Lamp - and Book is a dichotomy, but that implies something altogether more planned and active; ...Lamp - and Book is more gently at odds with itself than that, and so is merely eclectic. I digress. Richard.

Ben Myers has fictionalised the story of Richey Edwards, lyricist with the Manic Street Preachers until his unexplained disappearance in 1995. I was sent this proof for a reason by a friend who works in the book industry. The reason is simple - we were Manics' fans.

We must have seen them 30 times between 1992 and 94. Once in 1996, but the Richey-shaped hole stage-right was too much to bear and we drew a line under that part of our lives. I have never read any of the books about the band or Richey, I have read and seen very few interviews with the remaining three members of the band in the last 15 years and I have avoided thinking about what happened to Richey / what Richey did, for the simple reason that I will never know the truth and speculation seemed irrelevant and indeed, irreverent. I don't think my friend expected me to read this book; I don't think I expected to read it myself.

But I have. And so... what of it? This is going to be a hard book to comment on - for me now, and for future reviewers - as the chances are high that we will all offend someone somewhere whatever we say; that is inherent in anything that touches on this subject. Myers must have known that when he started writing the book, and must be braced for whatever hurricanes will come his way upon publication in October. He's a brave man. For there are as many theories about what happened to Richey as there are people who care, and the loyalty that Richey inspired in his fans means that even after all this time, every one of those theories is fiercely believed and guarded by its thinker. We all had a little piece of Richey, we all knew him in our own way, all had our own relationship with him (I'm talking existentially here rather than literally, though for some, the latter may apply). Therefore, there are things that we all KNOW, in our hearts, he did or did not do in February 1995. I KNOW, for example, that he did not jump off the Severn Bridge. I have no evidence for this, I just KNOW. Call it gut feeling, call it wishful thinking, call it denial if you want, but I KNOW. What he did do, or where he went, I have no idea. Honestly, I've never felt the need to think about it. But that he didn't jump, I am absolutely certain.

So to read a book, written in first person - in other words, that purports to be Richey's voice - that may trash what one has KNOWN for fifteen years, is quite an undertaking, and will be so for the thousands of fans who will devour this when it is finally available. It was brave of Myers to write it, and it is brave of the fans to read it.

In keeping with the spirit of its subject matter, then, Myers' book does some things brilliantly and some things less so. I'll start with what it does well.

Primarily, it tells a very plausible story. I won't give away the ending - and it's interesting that though a true story, Richey's is one that has either a choice of endings or indeed, no ending at all - but for me, it seems that this is very likely as a recounting of what happened in those (possibly) last days. It fits with the Richey I knew - existentially, again.

It has forced me to look again at certain aspects of the 'Legend' of the Manic Street Preachers: for example, that seen from the inside, the so-called Cult of Richey put an enormous strain on Richey himself. He must have felt a huge responsibility for the kids that copied his look, that cut themselves and wrote poetry and cried out to him. Yet what could he do for them? They were just another statement of his own impotence; he created them, these beautiful, screaming misfits, he validated them, yet he could no more ease their pain than he could stop his own. And look what happened to Shelley's Victor Frankenstein.

In amongst the bleakness, there is humour. And these few moments - fewer, to my mind, than they should be - are where Myers' Richey seems most real. Short bursts of banter with the rest of the band make him inescapably, beautifully three-dimensional.

Myers splits his narrative into two clear parallel tales: one, the first person present tense story that starts the morning Richey leaves, and the other, flashback, and it is here that my first literary problem with this book begins: the flashback narrative is written in second person. It is Richey talking to himself. Now, we all do it, we all talk to ourselves, whether aloud or in our heads: "Oh, you idiot, what did you do that for?" we will reprimand ourselves. But this is a very tricky technique to use well in a novel, as it must be sustained over a long period, and it works only in the hands of a very accomplished writer. I can understand why Myers did it - there is a clear trail of schizophrenic discourse throughout - but for me, it's just not a valid narrative form, certainly not when it is, in present tense, recounting what happened in the past; this is, however, a very personal view - see my problems with Wolf Hall, also.

And this brings me to my other problem with the book, one which I doubt I will be alone in having, and one which Myers must have realised would be a controversial sticking point. Third person would have worked fine - I'm a Rupert Brooke fan, and loved Jill Dawson's fictionalised account of his life, The Great Lover, because she never assumed she could get inside Brooke's head. And this is the overwhelming difficulty with Myers' book: that first person. In order for Richard to really work, it has to find Richey's voice, and I'm afraid it simply never does that. It just doesn't sound like him. It's a competent telling of the story of the Manic Street Preachers with emphasis on Richey, but it isn't Richey telling the story. It's too dumbed-down for it to be Richey. Richey would never just have told us his thoughts were shattering; he would have written a page that looked like something squeezed from the mind of ee cummings. Myers has underestimated his readership (which, surely, is comprised mainly of Manics' fans - who else will read this?) We have read Sartre and Kerouac. We can understand and make sense of fractured syntax: Myers' Richey tells us that he cannot finish a sentence, and yet he does, in page after page after page of perfect grammar. It does not follow, then, that these are Richey's thoughts. I will not second guess Myers - I don't know whether it was lack of confidence or lack of ability that resulted in this stylistic blandness, but as the story of a man's descent into madness, it just doesn't convince. And as Myers is also, in another life, a poet, this is doubly disappointing. Richey was a living, walking soundbite machine, yet there is not one attempt to create something similar in here. Not one line of Myers' would I quote, and yet I am supposed to believe that these are Richey's thoughts. Richey's raison d'etre was breaking moulds; Myers should have pushed himself to follow that philosophy. But of course, cynical old me can't help thinking, it would have been a risk to sales figures. Innovation doesn't sell. Look at Clegg.

I'll be honest and admit that I was sceptical from the first moment I heard about this book. It would have had to have been something truly extraordinary for me to really like it, and it just doesn't hit that button, though it is, as I have said, competently written (though competent was never a word I remember being applied to Richey...) But it shouldn't be dismissed out-of-hand. And I know Manics' fans well enough to know that some of them will do just that - it's a way of forming a protective shield, over themselves and over Richey. But this is a work of fiction, and it's important that we remember that. And I cannot begin to imagine what someone would make of it who had never heard of Richey - that, I suppose, we will discover in October.

I will leave you with this final thought - though plausible, Myers' version of events has one flaw: it never mentions the £200 a day that Richey withdrew from cash machines in the two weeks leading up to his disappearance. Myers' Richey has the money with him, yes, but he never mentions the sustained, considered, systematic way in which he came by it. Those withdrawals are surely (correct me if I'm wrong; as I say, I've not read much) the main indication that somewhere inside all the scribbling madness in his head, Richey had a plan. And Myers' Richey has no plan. So, believable as this story is - and it really is. I really do think Myers presents us with an entirely possible series of events - it still does not lay to rest all the questions and the niggles and the buts that have come to define Richey's memory.