Death, atrocity and exploitation seem to be everywhere in the world of *Transactions*; or it could be said they *are* its world. The stories here are interconnected sketches/glimpses, through which Alizadeh critiques the systems and power relations that lead to the abject situations he depicts.
The title aptly describes the interactions of the characters, but I sometimes felt the characters and their relationships needed to be developed further in order to become more credible. But perhaps this is missing the point? Perhaps what *Transactions* demands is a questioning of what you, as the reader, are prepared to believe—a test of your assumptions and limits. Nevertheless, as the stories came and went, and characters appeared and reappeared, I found myself less and less engaged with the proceedings. It was almost as if someone was getting all trigger-happy on the remote, and flicking from channel to channel, having lost patience with the narrative, trying to find something more grotesque each time.
The characters tend towards types, or caricatures—especially when they offer detailed descriptions of themselves in first person (as they often do). But perhaps caricature is the point. It seems a cult of caricatures is in the ascendency (whether we’re talking politicians, celebs, media moguls, terrorists, etc.)—and a possible reading of Alizadeh’s stories is that he is highlighting and commenting on this. Is it satire, realism, or hyperbole? Or all of the above? Indeed, it seems the reality that *Transactions* grapples with cannot escape (self-)satire and hyperbole. Bottom line: current conditions make these abject, caricaturesque transactions inevitable, and these conditions must be changed.