Å·±¦ÓéÀÖ

Brilliant, amazing book. I've read everything Szalay has written so I suppose you'd have to say I'm a fan, which might mean I'm biased. Nevertheless, I do think this is his best yet.

First of all, he takes some really big risks here. And they all come off.

The irregular time-gaps between chapters � works. As a reader, when you realise that's what's happening, you're immediately intrigued to find out how much time has passed when you start a new chapter. And he always finds a clever way to let you know.

Not describing the characters � works. In 99.8% of all books, the writer describes the characters. What happens if they don't? Amazingly, it still works. I formed perfectly detailed pictures of the characters in my head (was seeing Istvan as Grant Mitchell haha) just from how they behave and what they say. Very cool.

Boring dialogue � works. Most of the time, the characters say very little of consequence to each other. They discuss where they'd like to go for dinner, or whether they enjoyed a recent holiday. And yet it's never boring to the reader. It feels so authentic, you can't help but find it compelling. Plus it throws focus onto what they're NOT saying.

Passive protagonist � works. In every piece of writing advice ever written, we're told the protagonist must be active. They must act in pursuit of a goal. Istvan has none. Again, this creates huge authenticity. In real life, we usually just drift along, don't we? Buffeted by circumstance. The Adventures of Augie March by Saul Bellow is one of the few novels I can think of that pulls the same trick, but Flesh is honestly better. (Augie March is a bit bloated). Oh, before I forget... protagonist has no character arc either!

Before you start to think I'm a mindless fan-boy, I can admit that Flesh is not perfect. For example, there is an over-use of one particular dialogue trope that definitely began to grind my gears. Here's an example (made up by me):
"How are you enjoying it?"
"Enjoying what."
"The book."
"It's okay."
I don't mind the constant repetition of "it's okay" because that serves to underline how uncommunicative and inarticulate certain characters are. I'm referring to one character having to confirm to another what they're asking about. Is that authentic, that it should be so frequent?

Also, there was one important moment, where the protagonist observes a vitally important scene through a window... it felt a little too convenient to me that he should happen to be there at that moment.

Anyway, I only mention those two points to give this review a bit of light-and-shade. Overall, I do think it's a brilliant book. Should definitely be on the Booker shortlist. And potentially win, depending on what it's up against.

One last point I should mention. This is a highly 'masculine' book. The protagonist is hyper-masculine. I'm not going to get into a debate here between the intersection of masculinity and misogyny. I guess I'm just leaving a somewhat coded warning for female readers.