The change?

Probably because he was going for the horror novel feel. At least that's what I picked up from interviews. It certainly seems appropriate since I believe it's classified as a horror novel.

Yeah, it's gonna be a horror trilogy isn't it?

I know, I know. I'm just saying that he made a jump from his twists of survivor and choke to lullaby, a horror novel.

Fuck me if I'm wrong, but it didn't seem like a horror novel to me.

I read "Pet Sematary" when my father recomended it after I said "how can a book be scary" and, I must say, it scared the shit out of me.

Maybe I'm stereotyping? Somebody fill me in.

yeah i agree with grade 5. it's not horror in the way of pet semetary. but it is horror in the way of the sixth sense.

that said, no stephen king book has ever scared me.

The Regulators wasn't scary, but it was pretty damn cool.

Pet Sematary is the only King book I've ever read, and HERE IS WHY IT SCARED ME:

It didn't scare me in the sense that I was afraid to turn the page because the scary cat was gonna show up again. (SPOILER AHEAD) It was scary in the sense that shit happened to that family that you NEVER want to happen to you. The foreshadowing that King used when he would nonchalantly say that the son would only have two months to live before he got hit by a truck... it just made my stomach drop. So I guess it's not horrormovie scary as much as it is... you're glad it's not you? I don't know, but I think you know what I mean.

i think the lit term that best describes Lullabye is dark fantasy (saw it on a dustjacket for a Poppy Z. Brite novel in my room).

but then again, doesn't that suit all of his work?

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by grade 5 dropout [/i]
[B]Pet Sematary is the only King book I've ever read, and HERE IS WHY IT SCARED ME:

It didn't scare me in the sense that I was afraid to turn the page because the scary cat was gonna show up again. (SPOILER AHEAD) It was scary in the sense that shit happened to that family that you NEVER want to happen to you. The foreshadowing that King used when he would nonchalantly say that the son would only have two months to live before he got hit by a truck... it just made my stomach drop. So I guess it's not horrormovie scary as much as it is... you're glad it's not you? I don't know, but I think you know what I mean. [/B][/QUOTE]

I hate it when King does that in his books. It's not forshadowing,
it's just plain giving the story away.

In dreamcatcher he does that too. If he would've written it just once, it might've worked. But the guy they find in the woods who's "sick" he keeps saying that they'll really regret ever seeing him.

It's like okay okay, let the story tell us...we're not that stupid to not be able to see something that obvious.

You think it gave the story away? I dunno. I mean, technically you're right, but... when I got to that part I didn't feel like stuff was being spoiled.

I think he uses it for effect. Look at the context. The entire chapter is about this beautiful day that he shared with his average, healthy son. And then you find out he's going to die. It's like the drop in your stomach when you hear that your terminally ill relative has two days to live.

I was shocked to find out Lullaby was a "horror" novel. I can't watch horror movies unless it's noon, and I'm with my mom. So I was amazed that somebody had thought Lullaby was scary. And Lullaby did read differently. It didn't have all of the stragne facts, and the way he described people seemed unprofesional (e.g. The description of Mona is this: blah, blah, blah). I found that very odd. Not the blah, blah, blah part. I wrote that. But he would intorduce what he was about to say. But I quickly got over it.

Yeah. His writing really grows with each book.

Let me demonstrate the evolutionary trend we (or I) have seen.

Keep in mind this is just personal opinion.

(in order of books)

1- Invisible Monsters- just developing style. Repetetion being used in a minor, yet overthetop way. Quickly defining his style.

2- Fight Club- writing matures greatly. Suddenly he's using repetition and punctuation any way he wants to, and very, very well. He breaks all the rules once again, but this time much more stylistically and a much better overall feel and read to it. Style is defined.

3- Survivor- tries to imitate the style of the Fight Club. Doesn't fail, but just fails to please. The writing works, and is enjoyable, but doesn't have the great feel of Fight Club. Plus, the ending is poorly pulled off. Everything ends in a rush. Too quickly. But still a great book.

3- Choke- writing is at its peak. He uses his style almost flawlessly. The message and point are brought across very well. He goes back to the style of Fight Club and makes it better. Not only is the writing more enjoyable and more fun to read, but the story benefits because of that. Great balance, and pulled off excellently.

4- Lullaby- decides to reinvent himself. He leaves the previous style off at its peak and branch off on a different note. Still has the Palahniuk "feel" to it. Just the "texture" is different, so to speak. Enjoyable, well written, but a change. For the good or bad? Not exactly sure.

For my descripitons, good job by the way, I would switch the Survivor and Fight Club descriptions. Except the ending part, the ending of both novels were superb. In my opinion.

leonard, that isn't the order of the books. fight club was his "debut novel".

To be honest, I didn't think the writing in Fight Club was that great. It got very good around the time when Project Mayhem started, but until then I found it very haphazard and disjointed. I know the "jumping around" is intentional, but here it seemed a bit clumsy compared to his other novels.

Lullaby is my favourite. It reads much more like a solid story while still retaining the general Chuck-ness of the other books. The "Old George Orwell got it backward" passage (pages 18 and 19...yes, I memorised it) is easily one of my favourite literary extracts. Ever. The whole book is just fantastically executed. And as well as that, the theme of the lack of imagination in modern society definitely struck a chord with me.

fight club is one of the greatest books i've ever read.

The greatness I'll not argue. It's one of the few books that genuinely affected my life.

right so to me it doesn't matter whether or not the writing style is flawless. there's no such thing anyway.

True. I'm just saying, is all....

i'm not saying, i'm just saying....

Um no insomnomaniac...he wrote Invisible Monsters first. No one wanted to publish it, so he wrote Fight Club as response to that. Decided to make it even more over the top than Invisible Monsters. After Fight Club was a success, Invisible Monsters got published.

Thank you very much.

You're both right. If you wanna be all smart about it, you say IM was first. But if you wanna jump on the smart guy's back, then FC was first. Either way... I forgot where I was going with this.