Flesh - David Szalay

 Hove Book Group - Thursday 28th May 2026

Nick’s Choices - Crisis in Masculinity?

Nick was interested if culture had anything new to say about masculinity and whether there are connecting themes that are prevalent and can tell us something about solving this so called crisis

Flesh - David Szalay

Nick  (Score: 8.5)
Nick introduced the book and framed his reading around the idea of a crisis in masculinity, connecting it to broader contemporary anxieties about the loss of manual work and male identity. For Nick, István is defined above all by his passivity — a man to whom life happens rather than one who drives it, pulled through events by outside forces from his early affair with an older neighbour through to his unlikely rise through the British class system. This passivity deepens into resignation and eventually alienation, István becoming like a ghost at the edges of his own existence. And yet, Nick argued, the body provides a counterweight: the moments of violence and sexual desire are where we get closest to whatever lies beneath the surface. War, too, offers a rare moment of aliveness, as if only the proximity of death can cut through the numbness. Nick praised Szalay's prose as a perfect mirror of the character — spare, flinty, controlled — with tiny sentences accumulating into something devastating. He was keen to stress, though, that the book's ambitions go beyond masculinity into something more metaphysical: the strangeness of being alive, and the things that resist language. Despite its austerity, he found it a page-turner, 350 pages that read like 200

Nigel  (Score: 7)
Nigel came to the book as an existing Szalay admirer — London and the South East remains his favourite — and was pleased to be returning to the author. He had read Flesh in January and remembered it clearly enough not to reread. He enjoyed István's journey from his quiet Hungarian hometown through military service to the world of London's super-rich, and appreciated Szalay's spare approach to character and narrative, including the unexplained time jumps that ask the reader to fill in the gaps. He found the title richly multifaceted — pointing to carnality, physicality, and the various idioms the word carries — and noted that István's body often seems to act ahead of his own understanding, making physicality central to his experience. Though largely uncommunicative and passive, Nigel found István surprisingly relatable and sympathetic, his silence concealing a complex world of unresolved trauma that leaves him almost a bystander to his own life. He found it affecting and memorable overall. He did confess to being surprised when it was shortlisted for the Booker, and genuinely flabbergasted when it won — not because he doesn't rate it, but because it doesn't feel like typical Booker fare. He added, with characteristic honesty, that he has never quite understood what the Booker is trying to achieve. He predicted the book might prove divisive in the group.

Tristan  (Score: 9.5)
Tristan gave the book a near-perfect score. He picked up the crisis-in-masculinity theme, linking it to contemporary anxieties around the loss of manual jobs. He found the central character so psychologically repressed that we can only understand him through his actions — life simply happens to István, and only in rare unguarded moments do we glimpse his emotional self. He was struck by the prose style: sparse, repetitive, yet incredibly evocative, with tiny sentences that capture environment and atmosphere with precision. He particularly admired the way the narrative jumps forward in time — years pass and yet you feel you haven't missed anything. The understatement throughout moved him, including the way a son's death is delivered in a single sentence. He compared it favourably to One Day, suggesting Flesh does something similar but better. He also singled out the sex scenes as particularly remarkable — awkward, realistic, and exactly what literature should be, flowing off the page with a pared-down narrative energy.

Keith  (Score: 4)
Keith was genuinely torn. He acknowledged it was striking and smart writing but struggled with the central character. He felt that István was such an empty vessel that he found it hard to care, and worried that the book walked a fine line it didn't always manage to stay on the right side of. He wasn't sure the ending was satisfying, or that it said enough. He left the discussion still undecided about whether he fully bought into the book.

Roland  (Score: 9)
Roland pushed back on the toxic masculinity framing, arguing that István is not a stereotype but a genuinely human character — someone whose repressed nature makes him attractive to women in ways the novel doesn't always make explicit. He noted that the only truly meaningful relationship in István's life is a practical, unsentimental one, and found that very true to the character. For Roland the book is not simply about masculinity but about the immigrant experience too — a story rich in detail, full of moments of meaningfulness alongside stretches of disconnection. He found it pregnant and touching, and was particularly moved by the overdose scene in which István saves Thomas entirely against his own interests, a moment that reveals his qualities and flaws simultaneously. He described it as a subtle, engaging book whose direction isn't always clear, and thoroughly recommended it.

Robin  (Score: 6)
Robin had a divided reaction. He found parts of it irritating and parts genuinely interesting, and wasn't fully convinced by the masculinity theme. He described István as an old-school character and struggled with the linear, somewhat one-note quality of the narrative — the character's repeated 'I don't know' and 'ok' responses wearing on him. That said, he felt the book redeems itself, even if he found the character somewhat baffling. He had no interest in the property development strand.

Hamish (Score: 4)
Szalay has a sparse style. Szalay has an irritating style. Hamish would have gained the same insight if he'd simply written:

Shy schoolboy in eastern Europe struggles to lose his virginity. Okay. A neighbour seduces him. His life falls apart. Indeterminate time passes, sure. Struggles with London immigrant life. Meets rich guy. Okay. Has sex with rich guy's nanny and wife. Kind of rips rich guy's son off. Has more sex with unattractive women. Sure. His life falls apart. Okay. Time passes. Tragedy occurs. He returns to mum and Hungary. 

Chapters 9 and 10 are actually, erm, okay. Worth reading.
Perhaps the book is a comment on toxic masculinity. That's the best he can hope for it.
We've read two of Szalay's books now. Can we stop?
Booker Prize winner my arse says Hamish. Bring back Midnight's Children.

PEOPLE WATCHING — Sam Fender

By way of context, Sam Fender is a well-known supporter of men's mental health causes and regularly explores the male experience in his work. The album sits in an earnest, melodic Americana tradition — Springsteen, Bruce Hornsby and the Range, and the War on Drugs, whose leader produced the record.

Nick  (No score)
Nick drew comparisons to the earnest melodic tradition of Bruce Hornsby and the Range and the War on Drugs — and admitted that, despite himself, he kind of likes him.

Roland  (Score: 4)
Roland got into the album and found some genuine bangers. He noted the strong Springsteen influence and enjoyed the solo moments. He was particularly fond of Crumbling Empire for its melody, and People Watching for its strong message and carefully crafted, sing-along quality.

Keith  (Score: 4)
Keith found merit in the lyrics but felt the album fell short musically — too bland, too American in sound. He acknowledged Fender's sincerity but doubted he'd return to it. That said, he found something heartening in the idea that Fender might be getting through to young men with his message.

Tristan  (Score: 4)
Tristan was full of praise for the lyrics, which he found genuinely great — tackling big issues like religion head on. He has no doubt Fender can sing. But the music itself left him cold: too American, too bland, nothing new. His verdict was affectionate but firm — he's a lovely thing, but not my lovely thing.

Nigel  (No score)

Nigel heard the album through the lens of his long-standing ambivalence about Springsteen, to whom he felt Fender owes a massive debt. He finds Springsteen too overblown and tub-thumping — and acknowledges that means he's probably missing the nuances — but simply can't get past the bombastic surface. The same applied here. His preference runs to something more subtle, experimental, or less relentlessly mainstream, and he found Fender's sound sufficiently off-putting that he could only skip through the tracks, listening to two or three minutes of each. He admitted he therefore had little idea how the album relates to the masculinity theme, though he hazarded a guess that a track called Chin Up might be about men putting on a front rather than admitting weakness. He declined to give a score on the grounds that he hadn't given it a fair hearing — and offered his apologies to both Sam and Nick.

Robin  (No score)
Robin was brief and blunt: bland and boring, he simply didn't get it.

Hamish (Score: 6.57)
Samuel Fender is a very big hit in Hamish’s household. Not often does a day go by without one or other child putting him on. Top tunes and plenty of life on People Watching. Sam is a masterful lyricist.
For all the Geordie Springsteen clamour though, there isn't really enough variety for Hamish. Seems a bit tame. He feels the same about Bruce really.

HALF MAN — BBC iPlayer

Nick  (No score)
Nick found it relentless — gripping but at times too dark, with a lot of violence.

Nigel  (Score: 6)
Nigel came to Half Man without having seen Baby Reindeer, which he never quite got round to despite sensing it was something special. He watched two and a half episodes before stepping away. Part of his difficulty was with the dual timeline structure, which he felt strung out the discovery process unnecessarily — from the outset we know there is unresolved animosity between the two central characters, and the backstory is parcelled out slowly enough that he found himself unwilling to sit through another three and a half episodes simply to find out what happened. He suspects the whole story could have been told in a two-hour film. He appreciated what he did watch — the young actors playing the teenage and young adult versions of the characters were strong, as was the supporting cast, and student life was convincingly portrayed, capturing the angst, the desire for reinvention, and the pressure to make those years the best of your life. But he could have done without some of the violence, which felt visceral even when not shown explicitly. He was left wondering what the piece is ultimately trying to say beyond toxic masculinity and co-dependency, and whether there is any redemption or catharsis to come. He found it worthwhile but brutal, too drawn out, and felt there was nothing ahead but more darkness. There's more than enough of that in the real world, he noted.

Roland  (No score)
Roland found it compelling. He noted that the relationship between the two central characters is not straightforwardly that of bully and victim — the younger one becomes dependent on the older, which adds complexity. The control operates on both physical and psychological levels across childhood and adulthood. He felt the grand finale was unsatisfying and saw the drama as flawed overall, but was engaged throughout.

Keith  (No score)
Keith had no doubts about Richard Gadd's talent — he is at the top of his game — but felt this wasn't a game he wanted to watch. He took no pleasure from it.

Tristan  (No score)

Tristan was torn between finding it brilliant and finding it too much — but said he would like to watch more.

HBG endorse it: 23 April 2026 - 28 May 2026

TV
This is a Gardening Show (Netflix)
Mint (BBC iPlayer)
2026 (BBC iPlayer)
Young Offenders (BBC iPlayer)

FILM
The Rose of Nevada (2026) directed by Mark Jenkin (Cinema)

MUSIC
Ed O’Brien - Blue Morpho (2026)
Adult DVD live