Flesh

[Anonymous]

Trying to decode the book. I can't decide if it is misogynistic or not. Was the point that Istvan was driven by his most basic desires and lacked the ability to see what might happen and that the women in his life used him..? Because that's the point I thought the author was trying to make but I want to be wrong about that.

[Anonymous]

I am also reading it. I find it strangely under-developed, like the outline of a book that is to be written, but hasn't yet. I know this is the point, stylistically.

[Anonymous]

I finished it earlier this week and am thinking about it a lot so I'm glad for this thread. I appreciated the book, but I would say I didn't like it much.

Misogyny didn't jump out at me (but the two books I read before it were Cormac McCarthy books and as much as I love his books the misogyny is rife and all else pales in comparison, lol).

Some thoughts:

I think Istvan is kind of carried away on the current of life -- life kind of just happens to him. He's passive. I think he's 1) been traumatized but the sexual abuse and and subsequent tragedy when he kills the husband, and 2) isn't all that smart. Something that occurred to me today as I was driving home from work thinking about the book is that he isn't ever described, but I had a definite picture in my mind while reading it of someone who is definitely good looking ... but not gorgeous. Maybe an 8. But now that I think about it, given what happens in his life and how women can't seem to help themselves around him, I think he's probably more of a 9 or even 10 in the looks department. The women he is with are probably not a 9 or 10, he could probably "do better," but I think he's emotionally and mentally stunted. And he also probably has pretty low self esteem. So all of that affects who he ends up with -- he attracts people, but doesn't have confidence. And riding the current from these women ultimately carries him along, defining his entire life.

His voice remains that of a teenager throughout the book. The constant "Yeah," and "ok" dialogue, without his having much else to say most of the time, remains all the way into his 50s. I think emotionally and mentally he is stuck at the age of the abuse. I think that is a big message of this book -- that he is horribly affected by what that woman did drawing him into a relationship with her. And I think that would have been the case, even without the death of the husband. He has PTSD as well, of course.

I don't know. I didn't find any of the characters likable. Which is actually ok for me, if they are interesting. But I didn't find any of them particularly interesting either. Not that we even learn that much about them -- I feel like even with Istvan, most of what we see is surface level stuff.

And I found the death of the wife and child to be ... I don't ... kind of deus ex machina? I guess that isn't the right phrase, but it felt like the writer wanted to move the story on without them so ... just killed them off.

[Anonymous]

I am the first poster in this thread (I also posted on the what are you reading Dec 2025 about this).

I just finished the book. It is a work of genius. I think in many ways the title is what your realise at the end, that the character has been fully fleshed out but only by the end of the narrative.

[Anonymous]

I have gone out and bought three of his earlier books, one of which was on the Booker shortlist a few years ago.

All that Man Is (booker shortlist)
Spring
Turbulence

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I have gone out and bought three of his earlier books, one of which was on the Booker shortlist a few years ago.

All that Man Is (booker shortlist)
Spring
Turbulence

Definitely come back and let us know what you think.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have gone out and bought three of his earlier books, one of which was on the Booker shortlist a few years ago.

All that Man Is (booker shortlist)
Spring
Turbulence

Definitely come back and let us know what you think.

I will do, but probably will start separate threads.