I was hesitant about buying this book, as I suspected it would be one of those books about the expat experience in Prague that a certain category of expats ten or so years ago longed to write glorifying their own insular lives. (Having said that, I hasten to add that everyone has every right to attempt novels about their own insular or not-so-insular lives and that some of these books will actually be good.)
I did, however, remind myself that it could be a useful thing to get a view into the Prague expat scene of the early 90s, so I bought the book. While it's about expats in Prague in the early 90s, keep in mind that this is mainly a picaresque tale about a young man with an extremely tenuous hold on reality, and we're seeing things largely from his point of view. It's a funny book, but whether you find it consistently hilarious or merely occasionally prompting a chuckle is dependent on your own mood and point of view. I was not among those who found it hilarious, although it does have its moments.
Another reviewer has pointed out this novel's kinship to earlier tales of naive innocents such as Candide or Candy. To my mind, the author was trying hard to pull off another Confederacy of Dunces (I don't consider Ignatius exactly an innocent). At times he came close to doing so but ultimately he did not succeed. I've always enjoyed A Confederacy of Dunces, so I spent awhile pondering what might differentiate the two books besides location and several decades of history.
Leaving aside my opinion that John Kennedy O'Toole was a somewhat better--if simply more experienced--writer than M. Henderson Ellis, why are Ignatius's adventures in New Orleans funnier and more compelling than Shirting's adventures in Prague? Both writers present fairly crazy dudes who encounter a cast of other eccentrics and caricatured personalities.
Partly, I think O'Toole was writing about a city where he had grown up and indeed spent most of his life. He was familiar with many sorts of New Orleans natives and had an ear for the city's various dialects. He knew New Orleans much better than I do--I have been there twice for conferences, meaning that my personal experience is just about nil and I readily accept the world he created. Ellis, on the other hand, is writing about a city where he was an expat for two years more than twenty years ago, so he has some direct knowledge but perhaps not as much as he thinks; I lived in that city for two years about ten years ago but have been visiting it with some regularity since before he was born, so while I too probably think I know Prague better than I really do, I have much more trouble suspending disbelief when reading his book than I do reading O'Toole's.
There are many things I do accept here. I like that Ellis is willing to go out on a limb and try to write a 90s Prague version of A Confederacy of Dunces--he's got nerve, he's got a sense of the absurd, he can exaggerate like crazy, and I don't think it's wrong to model a novel after a classic that every literate person ought to know. I just felt like some of the choices don't work well. Shirting seems less believable a character than Ignatius, in part because we don't see him from as many other characters' points of view. Ignatius is constantly the subject of commentary by others, while Shirting isn't apparently seen as out of the ordinary by almost anyone. His video game obsession is believable, his coffee obsession less so even though many real people are obsessed with finding or serving the perfect cup. Why Shirting and his college nemesis can both wax prolixly intellectual is a mystery given what we are told about the two of them.
Mainly, though, I think the author missed some opportunities by a) making all the Czech characters nearly as crazy as the expats and b) not developing his crazy expats slightly further. It's true that some aspects of Prague life were pretty odd in the early 90s as Czechoslovakia threw off the Communist past and tried to return to the capitalist ways of the First Republic, but all the same most people in Prague simply went about their normal lives, making adjustments here and there. In A Confederacy of Dunces we periodically get fairly normal citizens doing their shopping or whatnot--while still subject to caricature, they help the real oddballs stand out more. In this book, however, all the Czechs are crazy too, so there's no real contrast. Nobody's just minding their own business buying meat when they're accidentally caught up in craziness. AND... I hate to say this, but it's really annoying... the author makes basic mistakes about Czech names and history that make it feel like he wasn't paying attention when he lived in Prague. Yes, they are fairly few, and no, they don't affect the story, but they undermine the author's credibility.
At the same time, this is an energetic first novel by a talented writer. The less you know about Prague or the Czechs, the more you'll probably enjoy this book, but it's worth a read all the same.