Thoughts on Diary. (spoilers)

it is interesting that he didn't tell what the mural was, not directly, but i think i figured it out. it was just a huge mural of the entire island, but something about it's perfection (the perfect 90 degree angles and the perfect circles) transfixed the viewers, making them go back into the fire. i pictured it as a huge painting that was so realistic it looked like photographs.
while i would've enjoyed a good explanation, it interesting to me how he didn't make the "climax" the focal point of the entire book. the last few chapters seemed to suddenly change tempo and feel, and either he did this deliberately or he started stumbling in his attempt to finish off a very complex story.
man would i love to sit down and talk to him about this.
if anything can be said about Diary, it certainly has a lot more in it to discuss than his other works.

I thoroughly enjoyed [I]Diary[/I]. As opposed to all the people who felt disappointed because of their high expectations, I think I had the opposite problem. [I]Lullaby[/I] was a bit of a letdown for me and I still am not exactly happy with myself for buying the Portland book. On top of that, I was on the verge of cancelling my pre-order of [I]Diary[/I] after reading the excerpt on the official site. It seemed like it was going to be a research litany that I did not feel like wading through.

That hardly turned out to be the case. The portion on the official novel site (the medical description of what happens to someone in a coma) was probably the most straight-out-of-research-mode section of the book. I think some people didn't care for this novel because it was something of a depature, in style and story elements, from CP's previous works. That's the flip side of why I did not like [I]Lullaby[/I]. I thought it was the same type of story told in a similar way compared to what had come before. [I]Diary[/I] was definitely a CP book, but it seemed like a progression in his writing style.

The main thing I that drew me in, as mentioned in this thread, was the steady pace and confined setting. It gave the story an ominous, creepy feel. Which is about as close to horror as I would call this book. I thought the ending was pretty good. (not the [U]very[/U] end, more on that in a minute). Shamefully, this was one of the rare instances where I actually remembered something from earlier in the book and knew it would come in to play at the end. That makes me think that Chuck pointed out Tabbi, - oops, I mean Tabitha - the little ingrate, practicing her escape a little too conspicuously. Wasn't it a chapter by itself? Although I certainly didn't see her as the cause of the fire.

The story was better off not revealing the mural. It made for a better reaction by focusing on the victims instead of trying to describe the painting. Given what the painting achieved, mesmerizing a room full of people on fire, was the there any way it could have been described adequately? A short description would leave people saying "big deal"; a long description would have seemed like too hard of a sell and would have thrown the story off that close to the end.

A couple things I did not care for: It was a little slow toward the beginning - not that it stopped me from planning my day around when I was going to be able to read it. And then there is that letter at the end. :eek: I can only hope that the letter was intended as a joke. Or if it had to serve some purpose, maybe as evidence that Misty made it out of the cave.

And now...the waiting for the next novel begins.

hm, when i read the part about Tabbi finding her way out of the museum, i didn't even think about it, although by that point i was starting to guess at the ending already.
yes, and now the waiting........................ and waiting.........
i have already found a helluva lot of good reading in some other thread's to hold me over, though.

"waiting for a twist" seems to be what many of us had in the back of our mind while reading "diary." I remember reading all of chuck's books out of order and I finished with "invisible monsters" and when the twist happened, thinking "o yeah, I forgot about this." I remember feeling dissapointed because with more thought H

(sorry about the interruption, i hit enter) so as i was saying.....

I noticed that Chuck has the same structure for his books with a twist ending, so whats the point of reading if you are always waiting for that? As my roomate coined it "Chuck's a one-trick pony." How can he grow as an author if he keeps doing the same things? Let me know what y'all think of that.....

Moving on....

Please don't get me wrong in thinking that I am bashing Chuck, because I still love his books but its frustrating when you're rushing through a book to get to the "twist" as is what happened with reading Diary. It's like trying to read Fight Club after you've seen the movie a couple times; you cannot fully enjoy the book because you can get through it so quick because you feel you know everything.

Despite all this, I liked Diary, not one of his best, but i feel it still sits with me because im somewhat haunted by the overall story. I havent fully digested it because i finished not 5 minutes ago so I'll have to keep thinking about it. Thus far, I like Lullaby more (but not my fav).

it's not being there, it's getting there.
that's my reason for reading Chuck despite his habit of always having twist's at the end. if his books ended regularly, with a climax and such, no suprises, i would still read him. of course i look forward to the twist, but that's not what i read for. the stuff between the beginning and the end is what i enjoy the most.

The more I read reactions to [i]Diary[/i], the more I start to wonder if some people would prefer that Chuck continue to write the same story, in the same style, with the same themes, using the same characters, and the same plot. My opposite opinion goes a long way to describing why I enjoyed [i]Diary[/i] and was disappointed with [i]Lullaby[/i].

The twist at the end is fun, but I don't try to hurry to get to it either. I love the middle stuff of chuck's books. Just as much fun, if not more, than the twist at the end.

Maybe the twist didn't come off as so shocking because it was so gradual, nearly through the entire book. ?

I just finished Diary, literally minutes ago. It's still sinking in, but in the end, it felt like a sort of slower, darker version of Lullaby?

I figured out that Misty had some sort of relationship with Maura and Constance early on in the book, be it familial, supernatural, or what have you. I felt that that was kind of obvious. I also figured out that everything she was going to do was going to lead her the same way that the other's went. Her staying in the car, her screaming FIRE and seeming insane, it was all encouraged. But the way he wrote the scene in the jail cell, was just beautiful. Really nice stuff.

Good book, not one of my favorites, though. On the same level as Lullaby more or less.

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by COpoetics [/i]
[B]Ok, here is another one for you guys.

Misty supposedly writes a diary every incarnation (every 100 years) yet she started writing the diary at instance of Peter's Mom (oh WTF is her name). Therefore would she have ever started keeping a diary/painting again had it not been for the intervention of the mother?[/B][/QUOTE]

it's hard to say. but probably. hence the note in the jail cell that says "if you're here, you've failed again." she was trying to fight it, but eventually it happened anyway. it was fate. it's hard to fight anything, too, when you don't know what you're fighting.

the legend of the 100 year painter savior is passed down, and the woman who ends up meeting the present day incarnation has to instigate the diary writing. perhaps Peter's mom (Grace?) saw Peter's coma and realized she needed to start insisting on the diary, as it was obvious that things were beginning to happen as was prophesized (sp?).
perhaps???

peter's mom caused the coma.

dammit, i need to read this book again.....
but now it makes more sense... she causes the coma, she encouraged the diary reading, she knew it was time and set it all off.

Ok people, I need some help here.

Just finished the book around 1000.

Basically, what's with the lunar references in the chapters? He describes three, three-quarter, moons (pp. 1,138, and 197), which I'm assuming to be three complete cycles of the moon. At first I thought it was some menstruation thing, but does it symbolize three generations of Waytensea Art School Alum?

And secondly, going off of AUGUST 24 and 3/4, Peter is clearly against the game plan. Does this explain the function of the sealed off rooms and Harrow? Peter tried to warn people of the horror, but Daddy caught on, burned the houses, and killed people?

In retrospect, I think Peter was a joto without cojones for trying to run w/o saving Misty. He could have just told her from the get go about the curse without having to do all this roundabout mierda.

And you diehards probably have talked about this ad nauseum, but I'm keenly aware now of CP's insistence of putting his protagonists through physical mutilation at some point in the story (Tyler D, Mancini, the roided out dude form Survivor, the model stomping guy from lullaby). I'm sure he's talked about his in the past, but why does he do this again?

Alright, I feel like an idiot posting this, but I thought the theme of the book was how people are made by their influences, hence all the Who knows why we do what we do? stuff, and the constant Fight-Clubesque references to advertisements, and so Misty wasn't an actual reincarnation, like the same soul, but rather a recreation. That's why they killed her father at the same time and all of that. I never thought it was the actual same soul and if that's what Chuck thought that really cheapens the book for me, because I thought the point was how identity is so moldable.

And then with the letter . . . remember that I read it at like 2 am after a long day . . . I thought that's where the true horror of the book came. Remember how Misty kept drawing all that stuff she'd never seen? And we get descriptions of it throughout the diary/book?

So, my stupid 2 am thought was that publishing the diary wouldn't save anyone--it would only make the girls start to draw these pictures and end up on the same path, drawing the same things that Misty drew, making the book, like all media, a kind of curse, because everything affects you and molds you and is where you get your inspiration. Chuck's other books were about identity, then Lullaby seemed to be about the power of words and how it's ignored, and Diary seemed like a combination--how words and images mold a person.

People are indeed shaped by their influences in the world of the book, but this does not mean Misty is not the reincarnation of Maura and Constance. Her soul is that of an artistic genius. She is always an artist. But without the 'conditioning' by the people of Waytansea island, she would follow a different path in her life, as she probably did before she was Maura. Hence the need of reproducing the same events that shape the life/lives of the Waytansea School painter(s). I'm sorry if it cheapens the book for you, I think it's brilliant.
There is no reason for Misty to want others to have the same luck as she did. The letter is her effort to try to save her future selves. She hopes that the next girl who has the uncanny ability of painting those places she has never seen, will read the book and be warned NOT to be carried away by the jewellery, NOT to marry a boy from the island, NOT to be again the victim of the islanders' conspiracy.

Well, I agree with what you said about the letter, but I still don't like the reincarnation thing. I'm just really not sure if that's what Mr. Palahniuk actually meant or if it's just to throw you off. But really, if you are led to have the same life as someone else, you'll turn out the same way, so I guess there's no difference between that and reincarnation anyway. It's not like you can see a soul and they have nametags that tell you who they once belonged to or anything.

Yes, but there are still things the conditioning would not ensure by itself. Maybe any woman in Misty's place, doped to the gills, having lost husband and child, and having everyone around her waving canvases and colours to her would start painting, but chances are she would not produce masterpieces stunning enough to cause Stendhal syndrome. The islanders had to have the right material, so to speak, to work with. And Misty's incarnations keep making the same mistakes, that are not necessarily the result of the conditioning.
Sure, there are no nametags, but there are other signs that make that soul discernable: the ability to draw perfect pictures of Waytansea from her "imagination" (but actually a sort of memory) and the affinity for those horrid cheap custom jewels.

i thought that "Diary" was very good. he didnt have another trip like e does in all of his books. diary was very addicting. i couldnt put it down.....but what book by chuck can u put down.....

the island wouldn't make money, per se, but would simply have it because of an economy more geared toward landed gentry. more recently things would cycle into a more democratic, consumerist economy that would also feel corrupting to the aristocrats of the past. hence their efforts to drive the plebians off the island.

Guys, please, help me out.

The lunar references in the chapters; I don't get it.

The AUGUST 24 and 3/4 chapter: Peter is clearly against the game plan. Was he against the idea the whole time? Don't see why he couldn't just tell Misty at the beginning.

If he did, it would have been a shorter book.

I really loved it. The twist was soooo good (My flatmate read the first half and then complained bitterly about how was it possible that they could know she would be a good artist... that was after I stole it off him ). Yeah, it was subtle, but I think it's good that way. I didn't enjoy some of the early Chuck books, simply because I was always looking for a twist. I guess this is me reaching a stage where I can just appreciate each page for the thing of beauty that it is, rather than looking for the end.

The whole August 24 and 3/4 thing was just that there were more than one entry for Aug 24, so he split them into days.

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by pvt joker [/i]
[B]The more I read reactions to [i]Diary[/i], the more I start to wonder if some people would prefer that Chuck continue to write the same story, in the same style, with the same themes, using the same characters, and the same plot. My opposite opinion goes a long way to describing why I enjoyed [i]Diary[/i] and was disappointed with [i]Lullaby[/i]. [/B][/QUOTE]

yeah, I agree absolutely. Lullaby felt a bit like, he'd worked out the nihilist Chuck forumla and just refined it a little since Choke. It felt almost artificial, commercial. I guess, that's why I enjoyed Invisible Monsters so much as well. I mean I really enjoy reading his books, but I each book to be a bit different and I thought Diary had just the right amount of difference to be really cool, without feeling like I was reading a different author.

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Texta [/i]
[B]yeah, I agree absolutely. Lullaby felt a bit like, he'd worked out the nihilist Chuck forumla and just refined it a little since Choke. It felt almost artificial, commercial. I guess, that's why I enjoyed Invisible Monsters so much as well. I mean I really enjoy reading his books, but I each book to be a bit different and I thought Diary had just the right amount of difference to be really cool, without feeling like I was reading a different author. [/B][/QUOTE]

you know, i have to agree with this also.

That question makes no sense at all.

Dear Monika,

That is not the same question that you posed in your previous post. "Has Mr Palahniuk failed Misty in any way?." is not the same as "dont you think Misty's Character was abit weak and had no control over her family, environment and destiny?" You probobly meant it the same way but well its not the same thing. Oh yeah and you should look up the meaning of the word passive. And if after reading Diary you still cannot answer that question yourself then it is amazing you manage to type at all. And at least I can spell genius.

Monika is my new favorite-poster in the forum. She is for-real bright and witty, and school some stupid rude American. Way to go. It's 7AM and you've made my morning .

And to - as best I can at 7AM - answer your question, or at least offer my opinion on it, I think that, yes, in many ways Misty is "the Chuck" of the book. It's pure speculation and conjecture, but I imagine that the feelings of people moving in to the Island parallels some of the emotion of the travel book, "Fugitives and Refugees" still in his head when he was writing it. And he's for sure seen Portland change over the years, I'd imagine.

As to whether or not Misty was failed by Chuck, I'd suggest that yes. she was. But I say that because I feel - sense, suspect; what from reading all his books so many times - that maybe Chuck thinks he's kind of failed himself. If that makes any sense? Because, like it or not, even with these first two "horror" books, he's still hitting the same notes, going for the same themes that permeate and echo throughout all his books. Hell, even the names are similiar: Misty, Brandy, Fertility.

Tyler, Tender, Peter.

And I think that's part of the legend / curse, that sense of repetition. Maybe it's that we can't escape our fate. And Chuck, through Misty, was wresting with a feeling like he couldn't escape his.

Monika, you rock .

NinjaGenuis37 (nice spelling yourself, Genius ), you suck.

The rest of you: have a wonderful day, and know that I love you.

an interesting question. but i look at it a different way. i don't think that misty was failed by chuck, because this would mean that there was another choice for him to make. i think that the fatalism of the book in general shifts the blame from chuck (and misty) entirely. what was meant to happen happened, and that's the tragedy of the book.

i think it's a way of expressing the lack of control an artist feels over his or her work, whether we're talking about misty or chuck himself. i definitely feel that jack from fight club is the most obvious self-manifestation on chuck's part, though--and you'll notice that jack is an observer, not controlling tyler but watching and remembering what tyler does. tyler, like chuck's characters, is a figment of jack's imagination, a part of him, but not under his control. i think chuck's attitude toward the characters of fight club can shed light on this question that way--in other words, i don't think chuck has ever felt that he "owns" his characters, and therefore failing them is not something he has the power to do.

I hated this book for the first half, but now I think its genius. It isn't fast or funny, but it's creepy and true. Art comes straight outta hell.

sigworthy.

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Monika [/i]
[B]Dear NinjaGenuis37,

English is my third language and is probably your first. So if my misspelling has offended your bleeding eyes. Tough, frankly I don’t give a monkey. If you knew what my original question meant then I wouldn’t have to pose a different one to build you up to the first one. So instead of acting like a smart ass, trying to through your weight around, like a bully that you are, simply agree or disagree answer would have been enough. I loved reading the Diary but I also have opinions about it, which I like to share with those who also read the book to find out about theirs. If you have problems with this, you are in a wrong forum. [/B][/QUOTE]

Throwing my weight around? Because I said I didn't understand your question? If you didn't notice noone else answered your question until you rephrased it. You started the insults not me so please don't call me a smartass (still better than a dumbass). Don't push someone over and call them a bully. Oh and you speak three languages? I don't give a monkey. God you're so passive.

*bitchslaps ninja*

dude, it's over. just get a grip and walk away.

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Lazlosdead [/i]
[B]If he did, it would have been a shorter book. [/B][/QUOTE] Ha! You may be too smart for your own good, if there was such a thing.

I thought this book was a bit of a dog... and after how bad Lullaby was, he's in danger of slipping badly....

ive read a million and a half friggin posts around here and realized that half of them have been complaining about diary not having a good twist and chucks writing going downhill
thats cool whatever
im not mad or disappointed that there was no gigantic twist or something that made me say oh my god wow
i like to read personally for an original story for a strong meaning and anything impactful on my life and diary definitely did that for me

i loved it
and i recommend it to a lot of people
im an artist myself and it definitely had a great feel to the book
the theme of repetition is accentuated so much in the book as well as in chuck's writing
i love how art can be whatever the artist wants and at the same time is always going to be the same throughout the artists life and the artist doesnt really have a choice whether it is expressing something from him or herself or being forced to paint or having to go through something bad to produce something good which i find very very true a lot of times when creating something
its a very personal book and i still need to read it for a second time to get the full understanding and catching of everything in it

I agree, there were a lot of little details that all came together at the end.  I've read the book three times and each time i come across another little detail that escaped me the first time i read the book.  Like the words "Te Amo" on Angel Delaporte's flask implies that Peter gave that to him because they were lovers....i didn't catch that the first time around....i always wondered how Angel Delaporte fit into the story and how his character was relavent.
 

"Angel Delaporte" may be translated as "angel who is the doors (or gateway or smothing like that)". He's Misty's guide. He shows her a dark side of her husband. He dies when all mysteries are unraveled.

Hi,

Does Tabbi trap Misty in the crypt at the end when she shows her the skeletons? The recurring theme was that they would kill her when she was finsihed. Would that explain why the other skeltons were not in coffins too.

Also, how did Misty get out of jail anyway?

Updated:
Right, sorry just noticed the "Mistys Fate thread". Still doesn't explain how she got out of the jail cell and got away with being framed for the murders though?

The whole thing with the bronze statues and their supposed footprints never really got explained either. When I was reading it I actually half-thought they had killed her when they food poisoned her; and her ghost/zombie painted the pictures. And that was why she was ill and losing weight etc. Obviously that wasn't the case though.

some fat bitch goes all kookoo.