A Survivor Effect? (Spoilers included)

you'll get it. your about to get hit with a major curveball so just keep going.

survivor might not have been a grand choice for a first.
mine was lullaby.
but i think after reading survivor i was left feeling that if i had read it first i would not have been bothered to read any others

it is a good book and it has its funny points its good points.. its moments. but i think its a book to read after you're a fan not to become one.

Thanks guys. Coming from trusted sources such as you, reason enough to keep going. I feel drugged by the language, all the same.

[I]Lullaby[/I] scares me because it comes so close to the storyline of my latest. Perhaps I'll try that next. At least I know the story.... :rolleyes:

[QUOTE=Luddy Dunn]Okay. This is my first Chuck novel. I began reading this morning and cut off about 3 hours ago, I guess mid-point; after the Stair-Master revelation scene. I admit upfront to being a tough sell when it comes to minimalism--although the set up of this story seems to necessitate economy in storytelling. Not a lot of time for introspection and yet, this doesn't feel like a stream of consciousness "the plane is going down" narration. It feels pre-planned (plane/plan. Oh, the difference a single vowel makes) for a certain reading experience. Which means it is Chuck very aware of creating the telling of Tender's story as opposed to Tender just telling Tender's story. Chuck as Author and Adam of the Cult. Tender’s Mom and Dad. Who is the God of the novel? This makes always makes a difference—all the difference. This novel reads like a scam.

But. And. Confessing a certain reliable suggestible effect in just about any medium (show me photographs of potatoes and a frog [non-squeezed] and I'll want French Fries); I can't seem to shake this flattening of emotional effect. I feel exhausted. More like I've been hit by a truck and can't get up--don't want to get up. “Guts”? I went in defended against being manipulated, and ended up manipulating myself all the more for it.

I want to finish reading the novel and yet there is this sense--[B][I]and this statement is entirely for illustration[/I][/B]--it would be easier to just kill myself. It is as though now that Tender is the only survivor of the Creedish cult, what's the point in continuing to read? Which Tender is asking himself this moment on the Stair-Master.

In all my history of reading, I cannot recall having this response to an author's work. Did any of the rest of you experience this? Is there any point to keep reading? The end is suggested by the first chapter; the twist is told in the title. I have clicked into but haven't brought myself to read any of the other threads for Survivor. Forgive me is this topic is repetative.

Somebody help me here, if possible. Other than learning the true nature of Fertility's Job (aka Life's Purpose), what is the point to read beyond mid-point? Everyone already knows life purpose: to continue. Other than that. It is, literally, down hill from here. I ask this in all seriousness. I'm experiencing an authentic sort of despair of meaninglessness. I don’t want to do anything. Read, write, talke to anyone. I signed on here to the cult and it was like, so what?

Any thoughts and/or guidance would be much appreciated.[/QUOTE]

Beginning purely and simply at the functional: read on.

As you can probably guess, Palahniuk enjoys the "hidden gun" and the surprise twist. You've seen Fight Club (even if you haven't read it) so you'll understand what kind of narrative progression Chuck is into. Even if you've seen something coming, there's usually an extra treat in store.

However - here's a confession. I am not the world's greatest Palahniuk fan. I almost respect him more as a teacher than as a writer. There, I've said it.

In a recent thread (I can't recall which one) Parka and Mocky brought up a couple of points that I thought hold true for Chuck. Namely, he is starting to become a little mechanical in his later books, but more significantly - he seems to be deconstructing his writing to such a degree that you can see the machine working in his novels.

This might be because once you have read the theory behind the writing (his excellent essays) you can piece together each individual cog. Oh - he's submerging the I. Hmmm...I wonder if that's the hidden gun. Look - a head passage and thesis statement.

Personally, I think that it's quite revealing that Chuck hasn't touched too much on character development in his essays as yet. To me, his main characters always seem like versions of the same person - tweaks of a central Chuck character. I sometimes find his peripheral characters more believable (such as Denny in Choke) - perhaps because he seems to base them more completely on observed characteristics in others. So, at times it seems like Tender Branson is a little bit of a cypher for Chuck's nihilistic ideas.

Basically - if you can see all this, if you're conscious of the presence of Chuck telling Adam's story, then I can undertsand why it's a slightly draining experience. A linked series of clever set-ups and pithy lines, but kinda flat and hollow.

My recommendation is still: Read on.

Hopefully, the pace and the ideas will suck you in further, but if not - get to the end and use it to discuss the issues you have with Chuck here on the Cult. Then something productive can come out of it anyway - and maybe it'll help your writing!

Good luck Luddy!

[QUOTE=Riddlegimp]Beginning purely and simply at the functional: read on.

As you can probably guess, Palahniuk enjoys the "hidden gun" and the surprise twist. You've seen Fight Club (even if you haven't read it) so you'll understand what kind of narrative progression Chuck is into. Even if you've seen something coming, there's usually an extra treat in store.

However - here's a confession. I am not the world's greatest Palahniuk fan. I almost respect him more as a teacher than as a writer. There, I've said it.

In a recent thread (I can't recall which one) Parka and Mocky brought up a couple of points that I thought hold true for Chuck. Namely, he is starting to become a little mechanical in his later books, but more significantly - he seems to be deconstructing his writing to such a degree that you can see the machine working in his novels.

This might be because once you have read the theory behind the writing (his excellent essays) you can piece together each individual cog. Oh - he's submerging the I. Hmmm...I wonder if that's the hidden gun. Look - a head passage and thesis statement.

Personally, I think that it's quite revealing that Chuck hasn't touched too much on character development in his essays as yet. To me, his main characters always seem like versions of the same person - tweaks of a central Chuck character. I sometimes find his peripheral characters more believable (such as Denny in Choke) - perhaps because he seems to base them more completely on observed characteristics in others. So, at times it seems like Tender Branson is a little bit of a chypher for Chuck's nihilistic ideas.

Basically - if you can see all this, if you're conscious of the presence of Chuck telling Adam's story, then I can undertsand why it's a slightly draining experience. A linked series of clever set-ups and pithy lines, but kinda flat and hollow.

My recommendation is still: Read on.

Hopefully, the pace and the ideas will suck you in further, but if not - get to the end and use it to discuss the issues you have with Chuck here on the Cult. Then something productive can come out of it anyway - and maybe it'll help your writing!

Good luck Luddy![/QUOTE]

This was helpful Riddlegimp. One of the major trade offs I think we make when we decide we want to be writers is we have actively decided to stop be readers; the way when someone decides to become a magician he has actively decided to give up believing in magic. In order to gain control over the creation of an effective illusion you have to deconstruct the illusion to the point it is for you nothing but a process of moves.

It has been years since I have been able to suspend my disbelief in some other writer's work, because I am constantly analyzing techinque. I can no longer see the story for the words. I am now a continual student of writing; not a reader. I don't consider myself a fan of any one writer, but as having learned this, that, or the other thing from one book or the other. For example, there is a scene in Toni Morrison's [I]Beloved[/I] in which I finally saw how to do a mid-scene POV shift. Extraordinarily elegant. That's the sort of thing a writer sees; not a reader. If done correctly, a reader should not see that happen at all.

I think you are dead on in your assessment of Chuck if you think of him in the magician terms--seeing how big a trick he can pull off in as small a space possible. How many angels he can balance on the head of a pin? And a [I]writer[/I] who is reading the book can see him working at it. I think he wants us to appreciate how hard he is working at it. That is what is exhausting me here. What I find exhausting in minimalism outside of short fiction is that I can feel how hard the writer is working at keeping the writing sparse. Short fiction can be sparse; novels are meant to sprawl. I think the upcoming Haunted, the novel told in short stories, may be exactly the form that allows what he does best, that utter control of the reader's experience, along with a chance to play. For all the humor in Chuck's fiction, he doesn't feel like he is having much fun. This was the same way I felt reading Franzen's [I]Corrections[/I]. I put it down at a major plot point, a moment of urgency in the story and never picked it up again. I loved the writing, I just did not care about anyone or anything that happened to them. It was writing as performance art; not storytelling. Not that there's anything wrong with that.

Chuck is a superb teacher. And I am learning a lot from his essays--and even more from hanging out with the writers around here. What I did not anticipate learning from his books is who I am [I]not[/I] as a writer and why. It is a very good bit of knowledge to have; makes me more comfortable in my own writer's skin. Nor did I expect to learn so many useful household tips--I'm actually just as excited about trying some of those as I am trying some of the writing stuff. Thanks again, Sir Gimp.

Meanwhile back at the crashing plane....

[QUOTE=Riddlegimp]
However - here's a confession. I am not the world's greatest Palahniuk fan. I almost respect him more as a teacher than as a writer. There, I've said it.

In a recent thread (I can't recall which one) Parka and Mocky brought up a couple of points that I thought hold true for Chuck. Namely, he is starting to become a little mechanical in his later books, but more significantly - he seems to be deconstructing his writing to such a degree that you can see the machine working in his novels.
Good luck Luddy![/QUOTE]

i think you are right that his later work has become a tad mechanical/formulaic. I also think that since he was able to take a break after Diary and do some simpler stuff (stranger then fiction, most of which was already written) i think hes gonna come back with a big, loud explosion focused in a single direction. Im very excited about it. I think hell probably start experimenting with his style and come up with some good shit.

luddy- you have the coolest posts to read. They always have so much packed in to them. Especially when you talk about being a writer and stuff. Also, let us know what you think of the book when you're done.

Wow. I absolutely adored Survivor. The first 3 chapters are, to me, the most clever and concise prose ever written. I was astounded, blown straight away. "women have the power to change the color of their hair and eyes..." Some might see how difficult it was to crush all that into one brilliant sentance, but to me it's beautiful and amazing and incredible and so righteous. Describing the hair cut method says everything about their lifestyle without ever having to mention actual agriculture. I read the whole thing before my shift was even over.

I read and re-read Survivor and Fight Club anytime I hit a road block or my writing starts to suck-drag on-lose focus because my jealousy of his ability to be so fast and focused brings me back to what I need to be doing. Not fucking around, but telling the biggest story with as few words as possible. Too bad I'm a dialogue hog.

The clever observations and cynical narration makes me feel embraced. The "Chuck voice" that some of you are alloting to his narrator is not necessarily only his character, it's a generation of many many people, male and female, who's minds speak with that exact same trot and cynicism to their conscious self, some of which are here. Others fancy having out grown it, now that we're aspiring writers or whatever, but the smarter we become reagarding deconstructing an idol, it makes no difference on the world outside. I wasn't aware that I was living in the Fight Club reality until I saw it. Until then, it was our identity and ours alone.

I sent Luddy a big thing I've been keeping under wraps and she loved it. I asked "You don't think it's just a cheap CP/Fight Club knock off?" She said No, but might have to retract that statement as her knowledge of this particular game seems to be growing. All in all, being called a dimestore Chuck would be one hell of a compliment.

However, I wouldn't mind if he took a break and got back to the early style. Lullaby was good enough, but things have fallen from there in my opinion. That story offered on the official Haunted site was, well, stupid?

Shit, all bands best albums are their first. They had their whole life and every desire behind it. With success all art suffers.

See, this is the part of the beast no one can control: the taste thing. Why does one form of music appeal to some and not to others? Why are there cat people and dog people and both sets understand why they are what they are because of the animal companion they don't prefer.

Want to perform an interesting experiment? When you meet a person for the first time, ask him or her what kind of food they like best. Instantly, you'll get a response: Italian, Thai, Spanish, Tex-Mex. No biggie because no one will tell you that you are stupid for liking a certain kind of food. Ask the same person what music he or she prefers, and you'll get something along the lines of "Oh, I listen to everything." Which is that person's way of fishing for some clues as to what you like so that they may agree with you to some extent or know how to present their own tastes without feeling ashamed for being less than cool. It takes real confidence to stand up in a punk club and request "Free Bird" or "I'm All Out of Love"--confidence and a good pair of running shoes. Though I would pay a fortune for a collection of punk remakes of Air Supply songs.

Now that I'm reading Survivor, I can definitely see the book's influence on your stuff Herr Mad. But your stuff is still your own. And your characters feel authentic from the get-go. I mean, a guy who actually tells people to go ahead and kill themselves? If it were coming from a place where he was still holding true to his faith--okay maybe. But the cynicism of his scam? I don't believe that, because really I don't think Chuck believes it. It's a set up. Oh, and Tender? The way you keep the bread crumbs on the veal cutlet is to roll the meat in flour before dunking it in the egg wash. The egg cling to the flour, allowing the bread crumbs to cling to the egg.

That said, I'm further into the book than my last post and you who encouraged me to keep going were correct. What a difference a few pages will make. See, now I understand what Chuck really wanted to talk about in this novel and since he's reached the ground zero of his reasons for writing. Chuck wants to talk about fame about how fame is a form of suicide. And now Tender, suffering the slow death by public consumption is coming across as a person instead of just a construct to illustrate an intellectual agrument. It's not about whether the plot or events in a story are credible, it is whether the characters are credible. The writing throughout Survivor is amazing--no argument there. But between the point where I wrote the opening post to this one, I no longer feel as though I'm on a theme park ride watching stuff happen to people who are not and could never be real. That is overly simplistic, but I hope it makes some sort of sense.

[QUOTE=Luddy Dunn] It takes real confidence to stand up in a punk club and request "Free Bird" or "I'm All Out of Love"[/QUOTE]

That would be me.

[QUOTE=Luddy Dunn]Now that I'm reading Survivor, I can definitely see the book's influence on your stuff Herr Mad. But your stuff is still your own. And your characters feel authentic from the get-go. I mean, a guy who actually tells people to go ahead and kill themselves? If it were coming from a place where he was still holding true to his faith--okay maybe. But the cynicism of his scam? I don't believe that, because really I don't think Chuck believes it. It's a set up.[/QUOTE]

To me, that's more real than real. It's something to do with your time, fuck with the world. I'm not sure if I ever needed to buy it, I wanted to DO it.

[QUOTE=Luddy Dunn] Chuck wants to talk about fame about how fame is a form of suicide.[/QUOTE]

That said, I thought this was actually his first or second book written, that it was nearly complete before there was any Fight Club, so this would be his assumption rather than reality of fame?

[QUOTE=Luddy Dunn]The writing throughout Survivor is amazing--no argument there. But between the point where I wrote the opening post to this one, I no longer feel as though I'm on a theme park ride watching stuff happen to people who are not and could never be real. That is overly simplistic, but I hope it makes some sort of sense.[/QUOTE]

I allow each and every flashy movie trailer to get my hopes up, knowing well in advance that it will be a severe disappointment. The big, incredible, unreal stories Chuck was doing is what I really loved. That, and the homework/added authenticity. I got my aunt to read Survivor, though not her cup of tea she said it broadened her world. I wish I were capable of such over the top imagination. My stuff is too grounded, in my opinion.

[QUOTE=Luddy Dunn]...One of the major trade offs I think we make when we decide we want to be writers is we have actively decided to stop be readers; the way when someone decides to become a magician he has actively decided to give up believing in magic. In order to gain control over the creation of an effective illusion you have to deconstruct the illusion to the point it is for you nothing but a process of moves. ...[/QUOTE]

Wow... I have totally enjoyed this thread, especially the statement I quoted above.

I read Survivor after reading Fight Club and Lullaby, and I think I read Diary after that... Anyway, I liked Survivor, but had to read it again to grasp it (as is true with most of CP's work) and have also found that there is present a formula, albeit a rather complicated formula, that he seems to use and then ...

[QUOTE=Riddlegimp]Personally, I think that it's quite revealing that Chuck hasn't touched too much on character development in his essays as yet. To me, his main characters always seem like versions of the same person - tweaks of a central Chuck character. I sometimes find his peripheral characters more believable (such as Denny in Choke) - perhaps because he seems to base them more completely on observed characteristics in others. So, at times it seems like Tender Branson is a little bit of a cypher for Chuck's nihilistic ideas.[/QUOTE]

... if only I could have said it so well, or at least wrapped my head around the idea if words failed...

I have this sense, also, the before.. with Fight Club, CP was driving at a philosophy. He was saying "Here, this isn't necessarily [i]the[/i] answer, but it's a lot better than what we've got going for us with modern religion. If God don't want us, then do the exact opposite of all those inclinations. Don't try to save yourself, aim for self destruction as a means to self realization, or of the living end.. or..." well, it's getting there.

But now I feel like he has gotten ahold of something that he knows he [i]can[/i] do, ie his formula, and he adds the ingredients necessary for an interesting plot along with a ton of great details from his bountiful "field research" at countless self help groups and whatnot, and he's milking the writing style for all it's worth.

In Choke, and I think it'll be the same for Haunted if Guts was a good representative of the collective stories, that the only envelope he's now pushing is our apetite for absurd sexual behaviours and clever plot twists, but without the substance that he used to write with.

Is he just cashing in on a method that works?

[QUOTE=ireLocus]Is he just cashing in on a method that works?[/QUOTE]

No, he is figuring out the puzzle of how best to tell the story he was put here to tell as best as possible in a public forum. What is wondrous about prolific artists is that we get to see them tackle creative problems, we get to see them work toward new understandings of how to do what they want to do. We get to see them grow. Growth is not always easy--or graceful.

It is thrilling and awesome in the old fashioned meaning of awesome. Like the progression of Van Gogh's of self-portraits. With a happier ending, of course.

[QUOTE=Mad Daego] My stuff is too grounded, in my opinion.[/QUOTE]

Well, I will always defer to an artist's own reading of his work. But having thus deferred: you are wrong.

Don't make me come out there and force you to accept it.

[QUOTE=ireLocus]
I have this sense, also, the before.. with Fight Club, CP was driving at a philosophy. He was saying "Here, this isn't necessarily [i]the[/i] answer, but it's a lot better than what we've got going for us with modern religion. If God don't want us, then do the exact opposite of all those inclinations. Don't try to save yourself, aim for self destruction as a means to self realization, or of the living end.. or..." well, it's getting there.

But now I feel like he has gotten ahold of something that he knows he [i]can[/i] do, ie his formula, and he adds the ingredients necessary for an interesting plot along with a ton of great details from his bountiful "field research" at countless self help groups and whatnot, and he's milking the writing style for all it's worth.

In Choke, and I think it'll be the same for Haunted if Guts was a good representative of the collective stories, that the only envelope he's now pushing is our apetite for absurd sexual behaviours and clever plot twists, but without the substance that he used to write with.

Is he just cashing in on a method that works?[/QUOTE]

I don't think it's as cynical as that, but I do think that his technique, research and growing understanding of the way fiction works means that he does have certain "ingredients" that he likes to include.

One of the paradoxes in Chuck's teachings is that part of the philosophy behind minimalism is a certain anonymity of style - content should be more conspicuous than the author's craft.

To me though, Chuck has a distinctive, at times overpowering style. I see his brush strokes on nearly every page. But - this may be as much to do with having read 14 or so of his essays which take individual elements of how he creates his writing and produces his work. I don't think that anyone with such a capacity for generosity (not just for spending the time to tell us these things, but for being prepared to part with the tools of his trade - things that he has sharpened and honed himself for decades he now offers willingly in summary form) - I don't think such a person could be "cashing in" on the style.

To me, that's more of a Stephen King, Danielle Steele, Dan Brown...etc. There's no art left in those people (if there ever was any). The sponge has been left out in the sun too long and now it's brittle, dead coral.

I think Luddy's right - Chuck is wrestling with ways to tell us the stories he wants/needs to tell us.

However - as you said IRE - I do think that he's lost a bit of steam, and that where Fight Club seemed to be born of some volcanic pressure and paranoia boiling under the whole of Western Culture (let alone Chuck's whirring mind) - Lullaby seemed more gimmicky. But then - you can't write something with the effect of FC every time (I know some like his other books better for style, humour whatever - but really, that book seemed to grab a culture by its balls). You can almost use the themes and anarchic ideas in Fight Club as the backdrop to all of his novels. They're kind of his preoccupations.

And of course, whatever compares to the first kiss? Perhaps we shouldn’t expect to be quite as excited by Chuck as when we first discovered him.

Anyway - I guess all I'm saying is that, although he's arguably flagging a little, Chuck is still better than most authors out there. To me though, his books have now become almost like the manuals and practical guides to accompany his teachings - but that's just me.

Haunted could change all that though - I think there's a lot riding on this book....

I wish I could find that Dave Eggers essay online still. It's been pulled down from the one site I could find it. I am not a huge fan of Eggers's books, but I have a great abiding respect for the man as a person and how he approches writing. Anyway, the essay was sparked by some vicious "fan" letter about how he'd sold out since Heart Breaking Work, and he wasn't "keeping it real." That was the essay's title, I believe, "Keeping it Real" and was aimed at one "fan" in particular who was "getting ready to write him off" as an artist because now that Eggers had tasted success he was no longer "keeping it real."

The essence of the essay was Eggers pleading with guy to yeah, please, do it, write me off, free me from your fucking expectations. I write what I write the way I write because that is you know the way I write about what interests me. And unless you are out there everyday trying to not only catch the muse in a mayonaise jar but make her dictate stories to you that read like both rose petals and lightning stop writing me these "Dude, you are starting to suck" letters from your one room apartments where you have nothing better to do than write "Dude, you are starting to suck" letters because you are just "trying to keep it real." And then Eggers signs off: that he was of course only keeping it real.

That was me doing a lot of paraphrasing and adlibbing from memory, the essay was both hysterical and authentically pissed off. Once you have a big hit [I]anything[/I] the public goes through a kind of "imprinting" process--like ducks: if you show a baby duck a tennis ball at a certain prescise moment after it hatches, it will believe absolutely that the tennis ball is its mother and will follow it around. Somebody makes a huge impression with his or her first work? Immediately that becomes a benchmark by which all future work is to be judged--fair or unfair, in this age of branding, Fight Club is Chuck's brand.

Coming up with a novel every year or so is brutally demanding work. But that's what a writer who wants to hold the reading public's attention has to do. To wait five years between books is to basically have to start your career all over again--not to mention that someone will have picked up the "style" you started and made it his or her own. All writers and [I]I mean all of us[/I] write the same stories again and again. We write what we know and what we know best is our own lives, but taking that and trying to look stunningly inventive in the halogen high-beams of minimalism every 12 months is going be next to impossible.

Kurt Vonnegaut teaches that you should never wirte about anything that doesn't righteously piss you off. It's anger that fills a story with passion for both the reader and the writer. In Survivor--on the very next page after I stopped to write the compliant that opens this thread--I found the point at which Chuck hits his anger: the media created version of identity. The last half of this book could only have been written by a person who has been through the hell of a book tour. And yeah, they will tell you that you are too fat to be famous. Or, more politely, that even in publishing they are looking for the "complete package." Then you find out that all your carefully chosen words don't count for shit. It's the numbers you can generate that keep you in the public eye.

[B]Ire[/B] is right, there is a certain "familiarity kills the thrill" effect that has to be expected. But a great artist--I do consider Chuck an artist--is only going to hit masterpiece level every so often. The Cincinnati Art Museum recently acquired a Renoir, one of his later paintings. I hustled my butt down there to see it. It's a painting of a cottage by the lake. It looks like something he splashed on the canvas while waiting for dinner. Even Renoir had bad days at the easel. But it is still a fucking Renoir and a so-so Renoir is amazing because what you are seeing is an artifact of what the blah between masterpieces look like. It makes him human again.

What excites me about [I]Haunted[/I] is that given the structure of the book and the story, Chuck has found a more subtle approach to the conceit of the narrating character whose sorrow and cynicism in the face of mortality is manifested in a doppelganger, who is out to destroy the narrator. Which is really the only story human kind knows how to tell. The whole freaking Bible is just one evil twin story after another. A skater has to land a hell of a lot of double axels before he can even try a triple--and in even trying the triple he's going to fall on his ass a lot. The reason to hang around is because this is a skater who you just know is not only going eventually nail the triple but can probably pull off the quad.

Going to go see if I can find that Eggers essay.

A-ha! Found it. You can read the whole thing [URL=http://syntaxofthings.typepad.com/syntax_of_things/2004/08/back_in_the_day.html]here[/URL]

But this is the good stuff:

"There is a point in one's life when one cares about selling out and not selling out. One worries whether or not wearing a certain shirt means that they are behind the curve or ahead of it, or that having certain music in one's collection means that they are impressive, or unimpressive.

Thankfully, for some, this all passes. I am here to tell you that I have, a few years ago, found my way out of that thicket of comparison and relentless suspicion and judgment. And it is a nice feeling. Because, in the end, no one will ever give a shit who has kept shit 'real' except the two or three people, sitting in their apartments, bitter and self-devouring, who take it upon themselves to wonder about such things. The keeping real of shit matters to some people, but it does not matter to me. It's fashion, and I don't like fashion, because fashion does not matter.

What matters is that you do good work. What matters is that you produce things that are true and will stand. What matters is that the Flaming Lips's new album is ravishing and I've listened to it a thousand times already, sometimes for days on end, and it enriches me and makes me want to save people. What matters is that it will stand forever, long after any narrow-hearted curmudgeons have forgotten their appearance on goddamn 90210. What matters is not the perception, nor the fashion, not who's up and who's down, but what someone has done and if they meant it. What matters is that you want to see and make and do, on as grand a scale as you want, regardless of what the tiny voices of tiny people say. Do not be critics, you people, I beg you. I was a critic and I wish I could take it all back because it came from a smelly and ignorant place in me, and spoke with a voice that was all rage and envy. Do not dismiss a book until you have written one, and do not dismiss a movie until you have made one, and do not dismiss a person until you have met them. It is a fuckload of work to be open-minded and generous and understanding and forgiving and accepting, but Christ, that is what matters. What matters is saying yes.

I say yes, and Wayne Coyne says yes, and if that makes us the enemy, then good, good, good. We are evil people because we want to live and do things. We are on the wrong side because we should be home, calculating which move would be the least damaging to our downtown reputations. But I say yes because I am curious. I want to see things. I say yes when my high school friend tells me to come out because he's hanging with Puffy. A real story, that. I say yes when Hollywood says they'll give me enough money to publish a hundred different books, or send twenty kids through college. Saying no is so fucking boring.

And if anyone wants to hurt me for that, or dismiss me for that, for saying yes, I say Oh do it, do it you motherfuckers, finally, finally, finally." Dave Eggers

I remember reading that Eggers tirade when I was besotted with the Flaming Lips (still am really) and thinking YEH! GODDAMM RIGHT! YOU AND COYNE AGAINST THE WORLD!

I still think AHBWOSG is superb.

Well thanks again for the clarification, as it were...

Essentially; An artist has a style, strike that, must have a style to be recognized for who he is. Lemme just read this Eggers essay and I'll jump back in to the duscussion.

Ok, nevermind.... personal pages are blocked here at work, but that excerpt is good enough for me.

I think I should check out the Flaming Lips....

Confession: I have never heard the Flaming Lips or most of the other folks Eggers refers to, but dang, the first time I read this I was in tears because, wow....bite me you judgmental non-productive fucking poseurs.

Which at this point I must explictly point out refers to [I]no one[/I] I've met here at The Cult. What is so unbelieveably wonderful about this place--trust me I've been around long enough to have seen just about every configuration of artists' enclave--is the overall atmosphere of respect, and I mean real respect. That has to be directly attributed to the writer who we all followed here. If Chuck were the fascist cynic con-artist that some "critics" accuse him of being--how could so many very good-hearted and generous souls have congregated here in celebration not only of a writer but of the miracle of writing itself? How many fan sites are dedicated to making fans of the artist better artists?

I never even saw a single episode of [I]90210[/I]. But I do know Sophia and Spike have split. Life happens fast in the arts.

The last paragraph of the Egger's simply rocks the foundations of every school of thought ever embraced. Dismiss me, please.

[QUOTE=Luddy Dunn]
...the overall atmosphere of respect, and I mean real respect. That has to be directly attributed to the writer who we all followed here. If Chuck were the fascist cynic con-artist that some "critics" accuse him of being--how could so many very good-hearted and generous souls have congregated here in celebration not only of a writer but of the miracle of writing itself? How many fan sites are dedicated to making fans of the artist better artists?
.[/QUOTE]

Good stuff Luddy. Again - floods of agreement from over this side of the planet.

Just finished Survivor.

To quote an old SCTV gameshow sketch: Well, tie me down and kick me in the head if I'm wrong, Alex....

Really. Here's the rope.

I freaking wept through the last 30 pages. I was laughing and bawling simultaneously. Right now, I'm more a wreck than what is left of that plane. Whoever would read this book and think of Chuck as being misogynistic (Laura Miller) should join me in the tie down, head kicking.

Tender asks for a half dozen parachutes, right? And the only one that we see get used is the pilot's. That leaves five.

To answer my own question: Yes, there is a Survivor effect, but not the one I expected. No one could have convinced me that I was going to come out on the other side of this feeling [I]joy[/I]. Overwhelmingly happy to be alive. And now, I'm crying again.

Damn you, Palahniuk. Those last 50 pages. You made me stop writing and just read again. Man, that felt good.

"People with this kind of honesty make me go a big rubbery one..."

Just kidding. Glad you dug it. I'm going to read it again soon.

So... anything you wish to discuss now that you're through withthe novel?

[QUOTE=ireLocus]
So... anything you wish to discuss now that you're through withthe novel?[/QUOTE]

I was sort of going to shut up for awhile and give everyone a break from my blathering...and maybe get some writing done.

Right now I'm trying to find the exact point in the book where I swallowed the bait and just went with it. Because something happened in the last 50 pages. Perhaps it starts when Tender stops trying to make things happen and actually starts surviving in the true sense; when Tender lets go of the control of his story, when the gravity of events just takes over, Chuck lets go, too. [I]Something[/I] happens because what was thought provoking and funny and topical suddenly becomes incredibly true and human and moving--while remaining the first three. Tender stops trying so hard; Chuck stops trying so hard. And something larger than any one element of the story takes over. Right now, I'm still just enjoying the surprise of how much I came to love a book I started out mistrusting and feeling frankly disappointed in. This seems to be a pattern with Chuck and me: I hate you. I hate you. I'm yours.

Of course, it could have nothing to do with the writing or the story and just that I haven't slept in close to 48 hours. That or the dreaded female type hormones--often known to make entire planets of warrior men in the middle warrior type warring go simultaneously the big rubbery one.

Let me skim it later and I can get back to you. As always, your thoughts are as eloquent as they are intriguing, and I'd do injustice by ramblng off my impression of the ending form months and months ago. I need it fresh in my mind.

..t

I found that it was a very fast read, and although the ending is told in the beginning, I knew Chuck would make it work.

geez theres so much text in this thread. blahhh ahahahahahahahahhah

[QUOTE=JMart]geez theres so much text in this thread. blahhh ahahahahahahahahhah[/QUOTE]
Huh? Guess you don't read books....ehh? Maybe you have cataracts. Should see a doctor about that.

[QUOTE=Dr.Jekyll&Mr.Hyde]Huh? Guess you don't read books....ehh? Maybe you have cataracts. Should see a doctor about that.[/QUOTE]
Oh snap, son.
But yeah seriously. That's one of the reasons we have this board, so that people can have long discussions.

lol i know.. just messing around, sorry