This dude really doesn't like Chuck...

[QUOTE=chimney scott;971193]Well, you can't really sue him. You have no copyright on your post. Just ignore him, he's weird and you and I aren't smart enough to comprehend anything he's trying to say.. about whatever.[/QUOTE]
also, I don't know about copyright or anything but you've got some ownership over anything you've written. If he used something someone else wrote to sell or promote his own work I'm sure there something fishy going on there.

Yeah, he's got basic ownership of what he's said, but he's not likely to get much of any profit from sueing the guy because no real damage has been done. It was just a message board post.

[QUOTE=chimney scott;971203]Yeah, he's got basic ownership of what he's said, but he's not likely to get much of any profit from sueing the guy because no real damage has been done. It was just a message board post.[/QUOTE]

what it does though is hurt someone's credibilty in my eyes. Very desperate and needy whore-like action. Very unprofessional

[QUOTE=nathaniel parker;971207]what it does though is hurt someone's credibilty in my eyes. Very desperate and needy whore-like action. Very unprofessional[/QUOTE]Oh and heaven forebid that occur!

are personal principles out of vouge nowadays?

no but judging others based on them is.

I am a fossil

feel the love!

I was kidding about the sueing. first off.

second...He added me as a freind...and I was curious. He took the time to actually speak with me..so i figured any writer that will actually sit and type out correspondance with his potential market deserves the attention and the read.....if even for just curiosity.

Turned out I was wrong and it was one of the worst things I have ever read. Not a "novel", not a "peice of literature"...but a thing - most equivalent to toliet paper. even the paper quality - obviously a low budget print job.

just low quality paper with shit smeared all over it.

HEY CRASH---

did you know that suglia corrected your english? he posted your message in his blog and corrected all of your english mistakes!!! he uses [sic] every time you make a mistake!!

see?

HIS MAIN CHARACTER FUCKS A BLOWUP [sic] DOLL MADE TO LOOK LIKE HIM AND JERKS OFF IN FRONT OF A MIRROR. Its [sic] like a [sic] shitty creepy psycho porn made by a guy who was raped by his father at an all to [sic] young age. (not sdaying [sic] that for effect either...i [sic] mean that) [sic]
3) I have read better plots of [sic] fucking fortune cookies [sic]
4) I had to FORCE myself to finish it.....just to see what the fuck Suglia was going to do next. It was almost amusing to read his myspace [sic] entries on how amaing [sic] he was, only to find [sic] his work is complete and total [sic] shit.

I really dont [sic] know what to say....His narrative of this guys [sic] "Barrows" [sic] life is just terrible. From page 1 [sic] it just becomes this misserable [sic] atttempt [sic] at intellectual writting and literary arrogance, [sic] What it ends up being is human excriment [sic] so fowl [sic] and so putrid, [sic] that even though its structure is mildly amusing (4) you don't even have the heart to show your freinds [sic] because of the rank smell.

HEAR THAT [sic] SUGLIA??? YOUR PUBLISHER SHOULD HAVE FLUSHED [sic] YOU.

I about a quarter of your age, Joe, and haven't even read the book yet, but I'm sure even I can refute some of this.

[QUOTE=theristes;970106]i can't believe it!!!!!!!!!!!! read this essay!!!!!!!!!!!!!! OMG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Chuck Palahniuk is an Idiot

[B]Ad-hominem...[/B]

Chuck Palahniuk is the Tarzan of American letters. If hell were a library, his books would be burned on the ninth floor.

[B]You clearly have some mildly confused ideas about the way Hell works! Oh hey, I'll say this now, too: you're confused about all sorts of religious stuff; you're not a prophet, kay? If you were, you'd be fighting for something concrete, not just this elusive concept of intelligence that you claim is going to a Hell where the worst thing around is a book about rabies or whatever. You'd be all about what's good for humanity as a whole, you'd be out volunteering/helping the less fortunate/whatever! You wouldn't be writing books about jacking off to Britney Spears, who is really more or less just a misled corporate pawn.[/B]

A review of RANT from the author of WATCH OUT

Even Palahniuk's most devoted followers will have a hard time getting through RANT (2007), [B]That's not true.[/B]a book about thrill-seeking that is devoid of a single thrill. As insipid as they are, at least Palahniuk's other books are EZ-2-Read. RANT, however, is not merely stupid---it is also soul-deadeningly, mind-numbingly tedious. While trudging through its pages, the essence of boredom was revealed to me. [B]Okay, whatever, what [I]don't[/I] you find boring?[/B]

RANT is composed of endlessly babbling voices. Each voice narrates a piece of Buster Casey's life, a Typhoid Mary who has spread rabies across the United States. But there is nothing new to be learned about Casey after the sixth page (pages one through six are titled, imaginately, "An Introduction") and what we do know is never vividly or convincingly described. To be absolutely explict: The plot doesn't move. It stagnates. There is no progression. No motor drives the narrative. Nothing is narrated between pages 7 through 319 that hasn't been narrated in the first six pages.

[B]A book is all about plot then? Not much happened in Catcher in the Rye. Not much happened in the last few chapters of The Outsider, which were clearly the best. Additionally, "endlessly babbling" is more or less alright in an oral history of a character...real people babble.[/B]

Anything that seems to be remotely original comes from somewhere else. The book's epigraph was stolen from Atom Egoyan's EXOTICA (1994), the oral-biographical structure was pillaged from Stephen King (CARRIE), the "Party Crashers" narrative was pilfered wholesale from J.G. Ballard's CRASH---a narrative that dominates the book to such an extent that it would have been better titled BALLARD FOR KINDERGARTENERS or BALLARD MADE EZ. (Casey IS Vaughan from CRASH. Yes, there is repetition in CRASH, but it is repetition with purpose, repetition with nuance, repetition with difference. Here, there is only the infinite repetition of the Same.) The Tarzanesque pseudo-sentence, "How the future you have tomorrow won't be the same future you had yesterday" (pages 4 and 253) was plagiarized from French poet and thinker Paul Valery ("The problem with the present is that the future is no longer what it used to be"). The illiterately worded statement, "History is, it's just a nightmare" (p. 60) was lifted directly from Karl Marx, THE EIGHTEENTH BRUMAIRE OF LOUIS BONAPARTE. (Not that Palahniuk has READ Valery or Marx, mind you. These aphorisms can be found in BARTLETT'S BOOK OF FAMOUS QUOTATIONS.) Even the rabies motif was thieved. David Cronenberg's RABID (1976), anyone?

[B]How do you know what Palahniuk has and has not read? But hey, you may be onto something here... every piece of literature, or art for that matter, is really only a pastiche lifted from a variety of pre-existing pieces? We pull inspiration from everything in the world around us and currently that world is saturated with media that we often draw upon? Oh, wow! Maybe look through a few more quote-books and take note of every time you come across one of those "art is just theft" quotes? They crop up a lot.

Though you know, didn't Cronenberg also make a movie version of Crash? Mayhaps at some point Chuck was on a Cronenberg kick and unintentionally let that influence seep into his writing? Don't foget, Joe, as a writer, you steal, too.[/B]

Reeking with unearned profundity, RANT is littered with fortune-cookie syllogisms, statements of the obvious that are presented as "deep truths": "Rant meant that no one is happy, anywhere" (p. 12). Who DOESN'T know that car-salesmen mimic the body language of potential clients?

[B]Well, I didn't know the car-salesmen thing. Besides, sometimes things are so obvious we forget about them. It's nice to have truths, deep or not, obvious or otherwise, spelled out to us, while interlaced with a story and characters and shit.[/B]

Even more galling than the book's content is its illiterate writing style. Nearly every other sentence has a double subject. For instance: "The flight attendant, she asks this hillbilly what's it he wants to drink" (p. 2). A slightly less awkward, slightly less annoying way of writing the sentence would be: "The flight attendant asks a hillbilly what he would like to drink." Palahniuk, however, insists on multiplying the subjects in his sentences _ad nauseam_, with unbearably irritating results. Palahniuk's defendants claim that he isn't really as dimwitted as he seems to be, that his narrators are merely functionally illiterate. If that is the case, they must explain why Palahniuk interviews in a functionally illiterate manner, why he writes essays in a functionally illiterate manner, and why every character in his universe is functionally illiterate, including those who hold doctorates. If Palahniuk is merely impersonating a lobotomized orangutan on heroin, why would he write essays and speak in exactly the same simian language?

[B]Because it sounds nicer and more interesting when read aloud. Besides, language changes throughout the years. I bet at some point authors were considered "functionally illiterate" when refusing to use words like "thou" and "thine". It's useless, not to mention pompous, to try and defend the observance of grammatical overspecificities.[/B]

And so we have the grating misusage of the word, "liminal"---over and over and over and over again... We have Phoebe Truffeau, Ph.D., who uses phrases such as "prohibitions to [sic] bestiality" (p. 82). We have teachers who say things such as: "That Elliot girl, she told me the Tooth Fairy left [the coin] in exchange for a tooth she'd lost" (p. 52) and "Money you don't work to earn, you spend very quickly" (p. 54). We have Lowell Richards, teacher, who uses the phrase, "indirectly and obliquely" (p. 99). Whenever Palahniuk tries to write "like the smart people do," he reveals himself as a half-wit.

[B]Is "like smart people do" a direct quote? Anyway, I think he's trying to write the way smart people (but hey, who says teachers, or those with Ph D's...like yourself - hah, are smart?) talk. Have you read The Laramie Project? It's made up of transcripts of real interviews, I recommend you take a look at the way the professors at the University of Wyoming (Ph D's, all) spoke to their interviewers.[/B]

And we have unspeakably hideous sentence fragments such as: "The ice melt and disappear" (p. 2), "somebody's died tomorrow" (p. 8), etc., etc., etc. Whenever Palahniuk tries to revise a cliché, such as Andy Warhol's overly-cited declaration, "In the future, everyone will be famous for fifteen minutes," he comes up with a monstrosity: "[I]n the future, everyone will sit next to someone famous for at least fifteen minutes" (p. 5). Palahniuk's revision makes no sense: I'm assuming that "everyone" includes "the famous," which implies, of course, that in the future, the famous will also sit next to the famous.

[B]What? I don't think "everyone" would include the famous. It seems, though I'm not sure, to refer to to everyone as in, the everyman, the average person. The average person's not famous.[/B]

Perhaps most offensively, RANT states, in a particularly infantile passage, that AIDS is a "disease" that has been "spread" by a single carrier----that it is a "disease" like any other disease----when, in fact, AIDS is a syndrome of diseases, a pandemic, for which no single individual is accountable.

[B]Nitpicker.[/B]

Allegedly, "RANT" refers to the sound that babies make when they vomit. Now, I've never actually heard a baby make such a noise, but perhaps one should take the "author" at his word. The title seems perfectly appropriate. Simplistic, stupid, superficial, tedious, and derivative, RANT is the verbal equivalent of chunks of regurgitate.

[B]Why is "author" in quotes? He is an author, not an "author". I'll revise this maybe when I read the book, but what if the book was supposed to be like chunks of regurgitate? That would make it less superficial. A book told in oral histories from various characters is probably not simplistic. "Stupid" is a relative thing, "tedious", too. I sort of adressed the "derivative" thing earlier.[/B]

The same could be said of all of Palahniuk's "works," which are not based on the imagination (the "author" seemingly has no imagination whatsoever), but rather on whatever he is leafing through at the present moment. Palahniuk has admitted that his books are collages of interviews he has had with random people in bars and at parties, as well as the four or five non-fiction books he leases from his local public library every time he sits down to write a "novel." The rest of the information is "Googled" or directly experienced. Or stolen. The central rant of FIGHT CLUB, for instance, was robbed from anarchist John Zerzan, who lives in Portland, like Palahniuk. In other words, Palahniuk simply spews forth into his computer an infantilized version what sophisticated writers have written before him.

[B]"Stop" putting "random" words in "quotes". Additionally, some of what you've written here is clearly made up. The stealing-of-things, again, I adressed earlier. As for "imagination", "Imagination can't create anything new, can it? It only recycles bits and pieces of the world and reassembles them..." So, you know, Tony Kushner says it best, there's really no such thing as imagination anyways, really.[/B]

Regrettably, Palahniuk is an incompetent plagiarist. There is often the question, in his "books," of relevancy. In SURVIVOR, there is a longish passage on lobster-eating that was lifted word for word from a book on dining etiquette. What, precisely, does this passage have to do with SURVIVOR's narrative? Answer: Absolutely nothing.

[B]Builds character. Here we have a guy who knows a lot about dining etiquette. From this we can deduce a couple of things about the sort of person he is. Besides that, I enjoyed reading that chapter. I learnt some things about Tender which allowed me to relate to him a little more. I also learnt somethings abotu lobster. No harm in that![/B]

Palahniuk wrote LULLABY in three weeks. I'm not entirely certain how much time it took him to disgorge RANT. My guess would be two weekends. I don't say this to praise Palahniuk, as if he were capable of fashioning a well-crafted novel in two weekends with the dexterity of a Picasso, who could toss off a painting in an afternoon. RANT is writing-workshop trash. It reads as if it were a live-journal or Web log written by a subnormal high-school stoner, retched out and fraught with galling errors.

[B]You've made quite a few outside references - Picasso, etc. Why is that, can't you think for yourself or what? That's okay, neither can I, neither can Chuck Palahniuk, I guess, but we admit it, at least. The last two sentences of this paragraph you've written are kind of unnecissarily nasty, to Palahniuk, writing workshops, keepers of weblogs, etc.[/B]

I have no quarrel with Palahniuk's followers. [B]Don't you? Cool.[/B] Some of them are intelligent. My only wish is that they will someday read the work of sophisticated literary artists. [B]Who says we haven't already? You have the propensity to sort of pull things out of your ass, make near-arbitrary assumptions, confidently state glaring untruths, etc.[/B]

They worship Palahniuk as if he were a god. [B]nope[/B] But God is not an artist. [B]I'd say that he is! But alright.[/B]

Neither is Chuck Palahniuk. [B]OMG THIS IS A SENTENCE FRAGMENT DUDE THATS SUCH AN ERROR OMG, OMG.[/B][/QUOTE]

wait ... like you havent read RANT? how could you talk about RANT if you havent read the book?

[QUOTE=theristes;971309]wait ... like you havent read RANT? how could you talk about RANT if you havent read the book?[/QUOTE]

I've read Palahniuk's other books, and I read your review. I wasn't defending the book, I was rebuttling your review. Do we get this now, Joey?

its a great rubuttlement

[QUOTE=Adelheid;971310]I've read Palahniuk's other books, and I read your review. I wasn't defending the book, I was rebuttling your review. Do we get this now, Joey?[/QUOTE]
Hehehe.

One day, Aldelheid, you'll be posting scathing reviews of books, as scathing as this review of a dull philosopher by another philosopher, which is so unbelievably cynical that it's worth reading even if you have no idea what he's talking about:

[QUOTE]If I were to say that the so-called philosophy of this fellow Hegel is a colossal piece of mystification which will yet provide posterity with an inexhaustible theme for laughter at our times, that it is a pseudo-philosophy paralyzing all mental powers, stifling all real thinking, and, by the most outrageous misuse of language, putting in its place the hollowest, most senseless, thoughtless, and, as is confirmed by its success, most stupefying verbiage, I should be quite right. Further, if I were to say that this summus philosophus [...] scribbled nonsense quite unlike any mortal before him, so that whoever could read his most eulogized work, the so-called Phenomenology of the Mind, without feeling as if he were in a madhouse, would qualify as an inmate for Bedlam, I should be no less right.

– Arthur Schopenhauer, On the Basis of Morality, pp 15-16
[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=corellion;970946]Suglia is to literature what Tesla was to electronics - quote by Corellion.

You can use that Sugs![/QUOTE]
Or rather: Pretension is the Suglia of Literature.

[QUOTE=Adelheid;971310]I've read Palahniuk's other books, and I read your review. I wasn't defending the book, I was rebuttling your review. Do we get this now, Joey?[/QUOTE]

its a great rebuttlement

[QUOTE=theristes;971311]its a great rubuttlement[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=theristes;971314]its a great rebuttlement[/QUOTE]

Oh Sugie. Get off the computer for maybe two seconds, why don't you? Go out with some friends; do you have any?

[QUOTE=Adelheid;971305]I about a quarter of your age, Joe, and haven't even read the book yet, but I'm sure even I can refute some of this.[/QUOTE]
Ha! You'll be accepted to Yale in about an hour.:amish:

this is the gas chamber of threads, i can go down the posts saying leftleftleft left.

im sooooo glad he correckted my talking. i almost 4got that teh internetz was for SERIOUS bizniss only.

and no tom-foolery.

[QUOTE=morey;971326]this is the gas chamber of threads, i can go down the posts saying leftleftleft left.[/QUOTE]

Morey, you've hitched your wagon to a tree stump
let it go!

[QUOTE=Prensa Taladradora;360847]how can you put films on your "best" list that you admit you haven't watched yet?[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=theristes;971309]wait ... like you havent read RANT? how could you talk about RANT if you havent read the book?[/QUOTE]

is it true you had films listed on your "best" list that you hadn't seen yet?

Can I have a free copy of your books Sugs?

Nobody really bothered to refute anything you've said, because, well, you're talking out of your arse. We don't feel the need to bend down to your gaping anus and shout our views into it. For the most part, we're respectful of you rdislike for Chuck's books, and most of us feel that we don't have a part to play in your opinions. Not to mention the fact, that save from a couple of us, nobody knew we had an audience with Joeseph Suglia himself, and thought maybe just another fourteen year old kid had decided to plod himself into the forums and win over our hearts with his astounding loyalty.

The only reason I'm really replying to this instead of anyone else, is again, because I'm young and want to show some loyalty to both Chuck and The Cult. I'm going to stop now, I don't want to seem immature. But as a closing point, people aren't arguing with you for the same reason a astro-physicist discussing how electromagnetism affects the earth's poles wouldn't argue with an eight year old who steadfastly demands there are in fact, sixteen planets in our solar system, and we're all just too dumb to see it.

[B]P.S.[/B] Don't be facetious if you're not going to pick up other people's use of irony, either.

here i wrote some poems bout the chuck

chuck poem number 1

hes smarter then lars
hes smarter then tommy lee
hes smarter then fred durst

yeah yeah yeah
chuck dont suck
yeah yeah yeah
chuck dont suck

he can lift heavy shit
cuz hes all roided up

yeah yeah yeah
chuck dont suck
yeah yeah yeah
chuck dont suck

i saw a tree and i named it chuck
i made a wish pon that tree

yeah yeah yeah
chuck dont suck
yeah yeah yeah
chuck dont suck

ok now heres the 2 poem:

chuck poem 2

im gonna go to the chuck reading
with my wedding dress on

yeah yeah yeah

im gonna go to the chuck reading
with my wedding dress on

yeah yeah yeah

ok now here the 3 poem

chuck poem 3

chuck is good wrighter
cuz he writes on good paper

sugs is bad wrighter
cuz he writes on paper that aint so good as the chuck paper

fin

Suglia is xec8!

[QUOTE=theristes;971655]here i wrote some poems bout the chuck

chuck poem number 1

hes smarter then lars
hes smarter then tommy lee
hes smarter then fred durst

yeah yeah yeah
chuck dont suck
yeah yeah yeah
chuck dont suck

he can lift heavy shit
cuz hes all roided up

yeah yeah yeah
chuck dont suck
yeah yeah yeah
chuck dont suck

i saw a tree and i named it chuck
i made a wish pon that tree

yeah yeah yeah
chuck dont suck
yeah yeah yeah
chuck dont suck

ok now heres the 2 poem:

chuck poem 2

im gonna go to the chuck reading
with my wedding dress on

yeah yeah yeah

im gonna go to the chuck reading
with my wedding dress on

yeah yeah yeah

ok now here the 3 poem

chuck poem 3

chuck is good wrighter
cuz he writes on good paper

sugs is bad wrighter
cuz he writes on paper that aint so good as the chuck paper

fin[/QUOTE]

Shut it, Doc Joseph.

is he 14 years old? what a moron - and my apologies to any 14 year olds here

parkaboy is sugs.

i aint fuckin sugs.

thers

[QUOTE=Crash384;971272] . Not a "novel", not a "peice of literature"...but a thing - most equivalent to toliet paper. even the paper quality - obviously a low budget print job.

just low quality paper with shit smeared all over it.[/QUOTE]This makes me wanna read it.

[QUOTE=Adelheid;971305]I about a quarter of your age, Joe, and haven't even read the book yet, but I'm sure even I can refute some of this.[/QUOTE]i are!

[QUOTE=nathaniel parker;971365]Morey, you've hitched your wagon to a tree stump
let it go![/QUOTE]nate........this thread makes me embarrassed for my fellow culties.

[QUOTE=corellion;971669]Suglia is xec8![/QUOTE]
Corellion is a fag!

i think that sugs is parkaboy or maybe crash!!!!

Isn't Suggs that kid from Madness?
[IMG]http://www.bbc.co.uk/london/entertainment/images/music/suggs.jpg[/IMG]

the sugs is crash 384 or parkaboy!

ther

[QUOTE=Vendetta;971751]Isn't Suggs that kid from Madness?
[IMG]http://www.bbc.co.uk/london/entertainment/images/music/suggs.jpg[/IMG][/QUOTE]
He's the lead singer of madness. he used to have his own gameshow on channel five.

vendetta now i think that U are sugs! that is y u call urself "vendetta"!!!!

What the fuck dude I don't even like ska.

this reminds me of a recent argument between my 5 year old niece and 4 year old nephew over who was a buttcrack face

it all makes cents now!!!!!!!!!

vendetta is sugs!

if knot y do u call urself "vendetta"???

cuz u have a secret vendetta gainst CHUCK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[QUOTE=theristes;971759]it all makes cents now!!!!!!!!!

vendetta is sugs!

if knot y do u call urself "vendetta"???

cuz u have a secret vendetta gainst CHUCK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!![/QUOTE]
HEY U, ur a peace of shit riter n u shud be DAED lololololololoLOL
fuk u n evry 1 who lukz lik u!

yeah that tells me all dat i need 2 know.

u r the sugs.

for serious

[QUOTE=theristes;971763]yeah that tells me all dat i need 2 know.

u r the sugs.

for serious[/QUOTE]

buttcrack face

[QUOTE=theristes;971763]yeah that tells me all dat i need 2 know.

u r the sugs.

for serious[/QUOTE]
LOL U R SUCH A DUMFUKC
FUK UR SISTR

This Theristes fellow is almost certainly the man in question, due in part to his constant postings of various Suglia material as well as having offered links to the Suglia Myspace numerous times. Also, he seems like a poseur, which is absolutely up the Suglia alley. If I'm wrong, dear Theristes, then I apologize, because never would I wish to incorrectly accuse anyone of being a man who writes such drivel as that line about eating at the fast food of life or whathaveyou. Anyway, pip pip etcetera.

Whoever sugs is i'm gonna have his baby!

I'd just like to know why this Sugs fellow, a published author, spends his time perusing the Chuck Palahniuk boards at such great lengths. Not to suggest he really is a fan of course, because he clearly has a loathing for Palahniuk on the scale of Montresor to Fortunato, but he certainly could use a hobby - like, say, writing. Do you like fine wines, Suglia?

He's naught but the small fries in the Happy Meal of life.

[QUOTE=alexander_thorul;971771]I'd just like to know why this Sugs fellow, a published author, spends his time perusing the Chuck Palahniuk boards at such great lengths. Not to suggest he really is a fan of course, because he clearly has a loathing for Palahniuk on the scale of Montresor to Fortunato, but he certainly could use a hobby - like, say, writing. Do you like fine wines, Suglia?[/QUOTE]
Maybe YOU'RE Sugs, huh? Ever thought of that?

Fuck this, I'm going to play solitaire, then go to bed. Goodnight, Dr Suglia.

alexandre is the sugs! note how pompus he talks! alexandre is the sugs!!!!!!!!!!!!!! just like that pompus ass sugs!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I suppose I certainly could be. I think I am Suglia, therefore I am Suglia. Oh God, let me think I am someone else so I can at least write moderately well.