If I read something on the Internet, does that make it valid? Some mention of this novel was about a book in three–part harmony. Maybe that was it. If I had a story like that to tell, same tale from three different tellers, how is that not kind of fun?
Not sure how I feel about this novel. Apparently, this is a story in translation, and as I’ve noted before, translation is rather tricky. Then too, when a review invokes the phrase, “Kafka–esque,” I should probably skip it.
One short blurb suggested it was the same story, told by three different people, so there would be three distinctly different versions with layers upon layers of material.
Illness, possibly mental illness, then obsession, then obsessive behavior.
It’s just such a thin line between brilliance and madness. The tale eloquently rendered by a translator’s touch, delicate with its phrasing, a poetic nuance clearly evident.
It’s a tale told in three parts. Clever, dark, skirting meanness and meaning.
Sort of an anecdotal foot note about a set metaphor.
The Vegetarian: A Novel
