I love how well cognitive dissonance, or basically just "double think", is shown throughout Tender is the Flesh.
Obviously the disconnect between people and the head is an illogical conclusion already, but in expanding the societal viewpoints surrounding eating meat "with a first and last name", the author adds a lot to the story. It's mentioned that people are often sold after their deaths, especially elderly folks, but there's a social stigma against buying that kind of meat. There are countless examples of this line of thinking throughout the book, such as how owning slaves was considered barbaric, but the same people who were being used as slaves were immediately sent to a processing plant, including the family that owned them due to the crime. Marcos's niece and nephew ask how Marcos would taste, and the zoo is defaced with words such as "after the curfew we can eat you," and "meat with a first and last name tastes best." Urlet and the hunters exist, and they're able to pay off people's debts if they stay hidden while being hunted for a certain amount of time, so that meat has a first and last name, but is perfectly legal to consume. Yet, the processing plant can't sell the meat from members of the Church of Immolation, even if they voluntarily choose to be eaten. Initially, I had the thought that maybe people convicted of serious enough crimes were sort of stripped of their names in a sense, but the more and more that the inconsistencies stack up, the more obvious it becomes that the author is simply showcasing the inevitable logical leaps and fallacies that must exist within a system so inherently flawed, so as to allow people to continue to exist within that system while still living their lives and functioning.
There's also the matter of how different countries regard the production of special meat. We know that someone from Germany is working out a deal to purchase head at the beginning of the book, but it's implied that the man touring the facility is new to the industry, though whether that's due to actual inexperience or is due to a less industrious meat industry in Germany isn't ever specified. Africa was noted as a part of the meat industry for exporting people to be processed internationally. Urlet is from Romania and there are restrictions surrounding hunting there, so he left the country to continue. It makes me curious about the laws internationally regarding the meat industry. Could there be anywhere that doesn't take part in producing or eating special meat? Are the slavery laws the same elsewhere? What about processing meat with a first and last name, and how does that look through the criminal justice system, when voluntarily given, etc.?
I absolutely love that this book is almost short and sweet in a sense, but I love the way that the author creates the world and the various controversies and conflicting opinions that exist within it. It just makes the whole thing feel so much more fleshed out and I would love to read more from the author at some point to see more of how they develop their stories and alternate worlds.
