Parkaboy's Review **SPOILERS**
I'll preface this by saying that, for the most part, I was entertained by this book. Now I'll tell you that I also think it's a scatalogically indulgent catharthis perpetrated with adolescent fantasy.
This book makes me not want to read Chuck ever again. Following his literary whoring of himself with Stranger Than Fiction, this "novel" seems to be more of the same. Retread ideas boasting only the transgressive and outre to lend them merit.
Putting on a Grande Guinol whihc ultimately leads nowhere, to me, reeks not of merit but of boredom. It's as if Chuck has become the very "Society of the Spectacle" he rails against. This book is virtually all show and no substance. or, to put it in Palahniuk's terms: There is lies unabashedly indulgent and gimmicky horizontal story and only the thin onion peel of a vertical one.
There are no characters in this book. I mean that, tell me about one of them, describe their personality? Not their physical description or their little backstories but who they are. You can't, because they are all the same character. Each one a modern day flagellant punishing themselves for their sins while simultaneously trying to turn those sins into fame and love. Yes, Chuck, been there, done that.
See also: Fight Club
See also: Survivor
See also: The Palahniuk Oveure
Chuck assualts the reader with one after another of self-degrading fantasies of mutilation, cannibalism, rape, etc. Yet it all goes to no discernible end. And speaking of the end, predictable and a complete cheat. Please, he "faked his own death," yes, how very clever Chuck, I think I saw that on Scooby-Doo.
Thje ending typifies the entire novel: nothing in it seems plausible. Which, on it's own, I don't have a problem with. But if a reader is to suspend his disbelief some rationale must be given, Chuck gives us facile explanations. Everyone hates themselves, telling your story is the only way to leave it behind you.... and so, the characters vomit their "stories" (which aren't stories thank you) upon each other leaving behind their "pain" along with an assortment of appendages and any attempt at individuality. They serve as marionettes in a twisted pppet show that the author concocts to once again show off his research minutae and predilection for shock-style fiction.
These characters aren't, they are each defined only by whatever groo-out story they have or by their employment. Tyler said it best: "You are not you job." But these people are, they don't have any sort of genuine motiovation for the gross ends they go to, simply proclaiming that pain is redemptive is a trite excuse for putting on a show.
But, I suppose, the man still does that well. It is often entertaining to read, like an auto-wreck, or the following Twin Towers, but after you've digested this viceral diet of penis-eating and innards sucking you are left with an empty stomach. Because, like fetuses and cock-tips, their is no genuine sustenance to be had here. It all adds up to nothing. To a ridiculous motive for an even more ridiculous set of characters.
Chuck is making a statement about modernity again, and one that is at least relevant--as opposed to his last two tract which were not. But all of his points are simple minded and his themes, or horses are tired from overuse and malnutrition. Pain redeems you, people will go to any lengths to be loved, your sins come back to "haunt" you. Chuck and many other people have said this all before. This time he puts on a spaltterfest and goes no deeper in probing his themes, he ought to have slapped on some latex and shoved his hand up his horses ass while he was exploring all of his characters innards while he was at it.
This book just pisses me off. It's a shock fest, nearly pure gimmickry. Nothing here is genuine or ture or substantive. it'[s Chuck promoting Chuckness, it's automatic pilot and it'll sell like Viagra. It all begs the question: Has Chuck become the very th8ing he purports to detest?
In all his books he's railing against the insipid, the cult of celebrity, the want to be all image and no self. Yet this book is all those things and less. It's all image, all gimmick, all very clever but unsatisfying. "Then people will love us." the book ends, and you can imagine Chuck himself talking to you, saying: "Love me." Yet where once I feel that might have been heart felt on his part, this book makes me feel as if he's laughing and saying: "I know you'll love me no matter what I do." It's like a child testing the limits of his parents, here Chuck seems to test the limits of his audience.
The "novel" is a series of linked short stories which aren't even short stories, they're cle4ver anecdotes each with the ol' trademark Palahniuk twist. The chracters, such as they are, never evolve, never change and are distinguishable only by the particulars of their stories, which might as well be interchangeable. tell me, what is the difference between adolescent slaying of people with knives as opposed to bowling balls? How is Miss America signifcantly different from Saint Gut-Free? They both want fame and love and validation, the difference lies only in insignificant details. There isn't character here and as if to underscore that, Chcuk writes every story in the same Chuck-voice. what is the point of 23 distinct narrators if each one sounds exactly like the others, if each one's story is a variation on a theme?
At least ten writer's in the workshop could have written this in their sleep. It's an adolescent catharthis, at times entertaining, but mostly just puerile and annoying. Where was Gerry Howard and Edward Hibbert when Chuck showed them this? It's like he's seeing how much he can get away with. But you know what, he isn't. And that, for me, is the saddest part of all. I really believe Chuck thinks his refined his craft here, that he's pushed new boundaries. But the only envelope expanding here isthat he is more base and gross than ever before. that's a Howard Stern improvement, not that of an author.
I read this and I think, Chcuk's punching a time-clock, but then I realize, he isn't, this is his heart and soul. Or so he tells us.
I have to believe his personhood goes deeper than this.
*I have themes and such to discuss in Book Club, but something tells me it'll be more me positing meaning in this mess than anything intended in the text. Also, please excuse the many typos and such as I have not Word installed right now and my back is killing me.
I was here. Then I wasn't. Then I was again.
You know, when I read Guts I had this feeling like the "punch clock" that you mentioned.
I asked, in some recent thread, if Chuck was just cashing in on a style that works; if he was just pushing our voyeauristic envelope with his signature writing style.
I admit, I still need to read this but; Guts, to me, was very dissapointing. It was like a master artisan carefully sculpting something grotesque for the schock value alone. All who see it would be forced to admit that it's very well done indeed, but they wouldn't walk away from it with any Stendhal syndrome at all. Just shock.
| adj | facebook | an american atheist| warmed and bound |
You have "I liked Nirvana before they were popular" written all over you.
There is hope, but not for us.
[QUOTE=jane s.]You have "I liked Nirvana before they were popular" written all over you.[/QUOTE]Another facile assesment, Jane. Keep the bar high.
I was here. Then I wasn't. Then I was again.
[QUOTE=ireLocus]
I asked, in some recent thread, if Chuck was just cashing in on a style that works; if he was just pushing our voyeauristic envelope with his signature writing style.
.[/QUOTE]
Yes - sadly, this review seems to fit with the discussion that a few of us were having in the thread you're referring to.
I'm going to reserve judgement until I've read it of course, but it doesn't bode well that many of the things that Parka has touched on I've kind of felt about Chuck's recent work anyway.
We'll see.
And leave it to you to assume that rambling on and on until you reach the point of needless redundancy is a much more eloquent and intelligent response than a succinct and, as you so kindly put it, facile response.
There is hope, but not for us.
I never liked Nirvana.
....still don't. But that Dave Grohl guys made some decent tunes here and there.
| adj | facebook | an american atheist| warmed and bound |
Not you.
There is hope, but not for us.
I know, just saying.
| adj | facebook | an american atheist| warmed and bound |
[QUOTE=jane s.]And leave it to you to assume that rambling on and on until you reach the point of needless redundancy is a much more eloquent and intelligent response than a succinct and, as you so kindly put it, facile response.[/QUOTE]
I bet you had to Google the word: "facile".
I was here. Then I wasn't. Then I was again.
[QUOTE=Parkaboy]It's a book review, Jane, not a pop soundbyte on the newest Lindsay Lohan pic. You ever read an [I]actual[/I] book review? Not a little EWeekly blurb, but a real one?[/QUOTE]
cough[B]zing[/B]cough
| adj | facebook | an american atheist| warmed and bound |
[QUOTE=Tin Foil Hat]I bet you had to Google the word: "facile".[/QUOTE]
I'm surprised they let you out of your straight jacket long enough to write this.
It sure is long.
I didn't read it!
(wtf just happened with the quote and the post and the... ?)
anyways, I don'y see why you're taking the piss here, Jane. If you disagree with Parkies review, why don't you post your reasons then?
As for me? I have to prematurely agree simply because I've had this sneaking supsicion since Guts that this kinda hting would happen. I'll still give Haunted a chance, but I'm not too optimistic I'll even want to finish it to be perfectly honest.
| adj | facebook | an american atheist| warmed and bound |
[QUOTE=Vendetta]I'm surprised they let you out of your straight jacket long enough to write this.
It sure is long.
I didn't read it![/QUOTE]I bet you didn't read the NY Times review either. or the London Times if it's come out yet.
I was here. Then I wasn't. Then I was again.
[QUOTE=ireLocus](wtf just happened with the quote and the post and the... ?)
anyways, I don'y see why you're taking the piss here, Jane. If you disagree with Parkies review, why don't you post your reasons then?
As for me? I have to prematurely agree simply because I've had this sneaking supsicion since Guts that this kinda hting would happen. I'll still give Haunted a chance, but I'm not too optimistic I'll even want to finish it to be perfectly honest.[/QUOTE]
I changed it, didn't think anyone was responding and found the Google bit more amusing....
Anyway, there are better "shorts" in the book than Guts, but the overall impression of Guts and Pucnh Drunk is pretty much the style and ambition of Haunted. The framing device for the stories is good though, too bad he didn't explore [I]that[/I] instead.
I was here. Then I wasn't. Then I was again.
I didn't read any reviews!
I don't read the papers.
I'm busy.
I'm not sure why this thread turned into a shite-hurling session so swiftly, but there you go...
[QUOTE=Vendetta]I didn't read any reviews!
I don't read the papers.
I'm busy.[/QUOTE]
Sexing the pie no doubt.
It's good to see American "culture" being exported with verve.
I was here. Then I wasn't. Then I was again.
I love Nirvana...
[QUOTE=Riddlegimp]I'm not sure why this thread turned into a shite-hurling session so swiftly, but there you go...[/QUOTE]
I blame electro-magnetism.
I was here. Then I wasn't. Then I was again.
It will be some time before I read this new work, but it looks like Parkaboy is saying that Chuck Palahniuk's ambition for [i]Haunted[/i] was faulty or unclear (to the author, and therefore to the reader).
What do you think Mr. Palahniuk was trying to achieve? Is it possible that he was simply going for the basic ghost story, shock value trick alone? If so, is there any merit in that?
There has never been much merit in genre fiction... And shock-value alone really shouldn't be the aim of any Palahniuk book.
[QUOTE=Parkaboy]Sexing the pie no doubt.
It's good to see American "culture" being exported with verve.[/QUOTE]
What are you talking about?
[QUOTE=snuffy]It will be some time before I read this new work, but it looks like Parkaboy is saying that Chuck Palahniuk's ambition for [i]Haunted[/i] was faulty or unclear (to the author, and therefore to the reader).
What do you think Mr. Palahniuk was trying to achieve? Is it possible that he was simply going for the basic ghost story, shock value trick alone? If so, is there any merit in that?[/QUOTE]
It's totally possible that this was just a new generation type ghost story of things that would actually scare and/or sicken modern people, who've been desensitized for the most part by ultra violent movies and things anyways. It's possible this is what CP thought would make a good re invention of the campfire story or something... I just wonder why.
It seems beneath him to do that, since there was so much purpose in his first two (or three) novels.
I think there is merit in that, I just think it's misleading to represent this as a novel.
| adj | facebook | an american atheist| warmed and bound |
[QUOTE=snuffy]It will be some time before I read this new work, but it looks like Parkaboy is saying that Chuck Palahniuk's ambition for [i]Haunted[/i] was faulty or unclear (to the author, and therefore to the reader).
What do you think Mr. Palahniuk was trying to achieve? Is it possible that he was simply going for the basic ghost story, shock value trick alone? If so, is there any merit in that?[/QUOTE]
I think he was under the impression that he was saying something vaguely profound which gave him license to romp about in scatalogical shock. As if he were luring the sort of person who doesn't read with the proverbial carrot (in this case literally up the ass) and then actually giving them "literature."
But he is only saying shit he's said in every other book, and none of that was very thought-provoking either (for the most part). So, what we have here is a lot of "deep-thoughts" like: People want fame because they really want love, this thesis then demonstreted by eating a fetus and a severed penis.
Had he spelunked the contemporary celebrity-obsessed, making a spectacle of yourself angle more deeply, then his shock-gimicks might be overlooked. But at the end of the book you feel like you saw an interesting carnival side-show, only PT Barnum tried to make some lame point about redemption while grifting you for 25 dollars.
Fortunately, after paying for his last book, I got my copy at the library.
I was here. Then I wasn't. Then I was again.
"I bet you didn't read the NY Times review either. or the London Times if it's come out yet."
I bet NY Times says same as you ? 
Anyway... your writing just appears to me as what you want say Haunted is : pseudo-intellectual writing style and poor content.
[QUOTE=Vendetta]What are you talking about?[/QUOTE]American Pie, the movie, the pie gets sexed by a horny adolescent.
I was here. Then I wasn't. Then I was again.
[QUOTE=Seraphen]"I bet you didn't read the NY Times review either. or the London Times if it's come out yet."
I bet NY Times says same as you ?
Anyway... your writing just appears to me as what you want say Haunted is : pseudo-intellectual writing style and poor content.[/QUOTE]
A review of a review, how PoMo.
And you mispeled Seraphim, lil' slugger.
I was here. Then I wasn't. Then I was again.
[QUOTE=Seraphen]"I bet you didn't read the NY Times review either. or the London Times if it's come out yet."
I bet NY Times says same as you ?
Anyway... your writing just appears to me as what you want say Haunted is : pseudo-intellectual writing style and poor content.[/QUOTE]
* backs away form the new guy *
| adj | facebook | an american atheist| warmed and bound |
[QUOTE=ireLocus]It's totally possible that this was just a new generation type ghost story of things that would actually scare and/or sicken modern people, who've been desensitized for the most part by ultra violent movies and things anyways. It's possible this is what CP thought would make a good re invention of the campfire story or something... I just wonder why.
It seems beneath him to do that, since there was so much purpose in his first two (or three) novels.
I think there is merit in that, I just think it's misleading to represent this as a novel.[/QUOTE]
Some of the stories are good "campfire tales," that's true. But if I just want entertainment it's far easier to watch TV.
I was here. Then I wasn't. Then I was again.
[QUOTE]how PoMo.[/QUOTE]
A review of a review of a review! This is fun...
[QUOTE=Seraphen]"I bet you didn't read the NY Times review either. or the London Times if it's come out yet."
I bet NY Times says same as you ?
Anyway... your writing just appears to me as what you want say Haunted is : pseudo-intellectual writing style and poor content.[/QUOTE]
Also, there is nothing "pseudo" about my intellect.
I was here. Then I wasn't. Then I was again.
You know, I'm back for less than an hour and I'm already stirring up shit. And all I did was review a Chuck book.
Why didn't I get Best Villain again?
I was here. Then I wasn't. Then I was again.
[QUOTE=Parkaboy]You know, I'm back for less than an hour and I'm already stirring up shit. And all I did was review a Chuck book.
Why didn't I get Best Villain again?[/QUOTE]
There's yer reason!
[QUOTE=ireLocus]* backs away form the new guy *[/QUOTE]
Wait, wait, don't do that... he's 17 and from[I] France[/I]. just threaten to invade and [I]he'll[/I] back down.
I was here. Then I wasn't. Then I was again.
[QUOTE=Mr. Brown]There's yer reason![/QUOTE]
Did you win anything? You were up for a couple of things as I recall.
I was here. Then I wasn't. Then I was again.
So, what's PoMo anyway? Like, what does it stand for?
[QUOTE=stoyan]So, what's PoMo anyway? Like, what does it stand for?[/QUOTE]
Post Modern.
I was here. Then I wasn't. Then I was again.
[QUOTE=Parkaboy]Some of the stories are good "campfire tales," that's true. But if I just want entertainment it's far easier to watch TV.[/QUOTE]
agreed...
oh, and you're not a villain, just misunderstood. I can't even say you're an easy target, cause that's one of my qualities round here... Hell, I have no idea why this is such a shite storm...
| adj | facebook | an american atheist| warmed and bound |
[QUOTE=Parkaboy]Post Modern.[/QUOTE]
Cool thanks. I first thought it's some weird euphemism for Homo...
[QUOTE=stoyan]Cool thanks. I first thought it's some weird euphemism for Homo...[/QUOTE]
"shut up you little PoMo... "
it does have a nice ring to it, though, dudnit?
| adj | facebook | an american atheist| warmed and bound |
There is definitely more than one way to write a novel. I'm enjoying the hell out of this one. My word. Kabol.
__________________________________
play hard, like it's work to be done.
[QUOTE=Parkaboy]Did you win anything? You were up for a couple of things as I recall.[/QUOTE]
This is getting off topic.
[QUOTE=ireLocus]agreed...
oh, and you're not a villain, just misunderstood. I can't even say you're an easy target, cause that's one of my qualities round here... Hell, I have no idea why this is such a shite storm...[/QUOTE]
Actually, vis a vis this "non-space of the mind" I think I'm fairly well understood. At least my intent if not my actual thoughts.
look I use an emoticon here>>>
I was here. Then I wasn't. Then I was again.
[QUOTE=JKabol]There is definitely more than one way to write a novel. I'm enjoying the hell out of this one. My word. Kabol.[/QUOTE]
Turn in your platinum badge, sir and don't give security any trouble on your way out.
I was here. Then I wasn't. Then I was again.
[QUOTE=ireLocus]"shut up you little PoMo... "
it does have a nice ring to it, though, dudnit?[/QUOTE]
No, don't get me wrong, I totally like it, just didn't know what it means. But now I do.
I'm glad JKabol likes the book, gives hope.
[QUOTE=Mr. Brown]This is getting off topic.[/QUOTE]
"It's my thread and I'll OT if I want to..."
I was here. Then I wasn't. Then I was again.
[QUOTE=stoyan]No, don't get me wrong, I totally like it, just didn't know what it means. But now I do.
I'm glad JKabol likes the book, gives hope.[/QUOTE]
Like I said, it is fiarly entertaining at times. I'll give it that. but so were the Ramona Quimby novels, you know?
I was here. Then I wasn't. Then I was again.
HAHAHAHA.
Remind me, didn't you say jane searched "facile" on google ?
If your intellect is limited to those sucking Matrix Reloaded/revolutions movies, i'm worried for you. Anyway, your arrogance seems not to have problems at least.
[QUOTE=Parkaboy]I think he was under the impression that he was saying something vaguely profound which gave him license to romp about in scatalogical shock. As if he were luring the sort of person who doesn't read with the proverbial carrot (in this case literally up the ass) and then actually giving them "literature."
But he is only saying shit he's said in every other book, and none of that was very thought-provoking either (for the most part). So, what we have here is a lot of "deep-thoughts" like: People want fame because they really want love, this thesis then demonstreted by eating a fetus and a severed penis.
Had he spelunked the contemporary celebrity-obsessed, making a spectacle of yourself angle more deeply, then his shock-gimicks might be overlooked. But at the end of the book you feel like you saw an interesting carnival side-show, only PT Barnum tried to make some lame point about redemption while grifting you for 25 dollars.
[/QUOTE]
You seem to be saying that the "campfire" elements of the book are fun, but not so much for a seasoned Palahniuk reader. Still, from your initial review, it seems like you think that he is indeed going for more -- and failing. Which is too bad.
Keeping this review in mind, I'm definitely checking it out as soon as I can. I enjoy horror stuff, i bet i'll get a kick out of at least some of the stories.
This is all so sad, Chuck becoming a Grisham sort of writer... I mean Diary sucked, and then most people said Haunted is awesome and I was hopeful again.
Anyway, let's just hope he realizes the quality of his work (if indeed it is as you've described it) and changes soon.
And btw, when I first found out that there's going to be a story collection with Guts-like gross-out stories, I thought of rotten.com. I mean his Haunted stories seem to be the literary equivalent of a rotten.com picture. I mean Guts made people puke and faint, which is quite an accomplishment, but pictures of decaying corpses can do that too. You know, real-TV can do that.
I'll definitely read Haunted though as soon as I can get it.