Parkaboy's Review **SPOILERS**

all i know is, for a novel i think everyone agrees is mediocre. we sure are discussing it a lot

[QUOTE=sacredchao23]but surely the "she's" and "I's" weren't intermingled. I dont remember for sure, thats how little effect Diary had on me. Does anyone else think Period Revival would have been a more interesting read?[/QUOTE]
Yeah, when he outlined that in the essay it sounded like a much more ambitious idea.

[QUOTE=karbunkle]all i know is, for a novel i think everyone agrees is mediocre. we sure are discussing it a lot[/QUOTE]
Point.

And how come it all has to be in your (Parkaboy, I mean) thread? Whats wrong with the one *I* started?

[QUOTE=sacredchao23]And how come it all has to be in your (Parkaboy, I mean) thread? Whats wrong with the one *I* started?
;-)[/QUOTE]
because this one has those cool ** ** in the title

I will keep that in mind for the future. Gracias.

[QUOTE=sacredchao23]And how come it all has to be in your (Parkaboy, I mean) thread? Whats wrong with the one *I* started?
;-)[/QUOTE]
I'm a mad mod poet God.

[I]Obviously....[/I]

[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]

....

*Sigh*

man if you want to start an arguement with him... try attacking his arguements. Not him.

[QUOTE=MockyMockins]....

*Sigh*

man if you want to start an arguement with him... try attacking his arguements. Not him.[/QUOTE]

I was going to suggest the wisdom of the ages: I'm rubber; you're glue....

Personally, think this thread (my blather aside) has been brilliant. Any writer would be damn flattered to see this much thought and exploration of a book on the part of any reader, let alone a group. You don't write to get love, you write to get read. Chuck laid down a triple dog dare to readers with [I]Haunted[/I]. This thread only proves that his readers are up for the challenge. Whether this book is meant as a hybrid of form--deliberately or accidentally--it does force us to examine our expectations of fiction. I hated some the book and was left awestruck by some other elements. Either way, it has kept me up nights not from horror but from trying to figure out how the form of the books works. I think the book itself is the Nightmare Box. It has made me think more deeply about [I]writing[/I] than anything I've read in a long time. I sent away to St. Helen's for a signed copy (no way Chuck is coming to my neck of the woods); the inscription read "Happy Birthday (Birthday was then crossed out and replaced with) Nightmares."

[QUOTE=Parkaboy]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......
..........
...................*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.[/QUOTE]
Ouch park. That’s a stabbing review. I don’t think it’s at the level of atrocity you claim, although I have my own opinions. I’m about 250 pages through and will give a complete review when done.

I admit I was very excited about this book because I’m in love with the concept. Putting together a collection of short stories in a unique way is a difficult task, especially when you’re trying to link them together with an overall narrative.

I agree with your character assessment. I’m finding that to be the hardest thing to stomach. The characters are what I would expect from chuck, over the top, but in this case they are impossible to associate with. They feel too caricature. And having titles instead of names adds to the implausible characterizing, but perhaps that’s what chuck was going for, he is know for his over the top characters and he might be trying to push it further. But for me there are too many of them and they’re too briefly touched upon too establish any real connection. I can’t read this book in one sitting. So I’m finding that I lose “who’s who.” Actually to those about to read it I suggest you do a burn of it in one day. There is a kind of rhythm to the structure. And I think you lose a lot when reading piecemeal.

I'm two hundred and fifty pages in. What’s getting to me is the poem/character sketch. It's a quick way to drop characteristics, which really don’t cling to the actual characters they describe because it's almost too detached from the narrative. I was actually fond of it in the beginning but I’m starting to feel friction.

Chuck is pushing boundaries even if he’s hit them before. Perhaps he’s trying to push harder. In a way I think he’s playing with extremes. The book is screaming with head authority, which for me is getting tedious, but then flips into painfully grotesque and detailed visuals, it’s like one extreme to the other. And I fancy the contrasts.

Again my biggest criticism if with character development. It’s hard to keep focus on the various stories because I just can’t cling or sympathize with any character in particular.

Anyways, I go and finish.
[SIZE=4][I]WHIP MANNNN!!! If you see this point me in the direction of your review you wrote a millennium ago. I'm having a devil of a time finding it.[/I][/SIZE]

Hey Dr. J,

[url]http://www.chuckpalahniuk.net/community/showthread.php?t=19425[/url]

There's the link to it, but I wouldn't bother, It's not in depth at all compared to the reviews everyones doing now. I enjoyed reading Parka's review, even though I didn't fully agree with it, I enjoyed looking at it from his point of view, and his ideas since this thread discussing it.

I wrote mine so long before the book came out that I couldn't really get into any meat of the book, because I didn't want to give any of it away. It basically says, I liked it.

But I will definitly be hitting chuck up with some questions in the Barnes and Nobel.

And Dr. J, I can't wait to hear what you have to say when your done with the book, give a big long in depth review!!!

Regards,

Paul the Whip Guy

Haunted made the New York Times Best Seller List this week and while I didn't like this book itself, at least it goes to show talent and popularity aren't mutually exclsuive. This is, I think, Chuck's fourth consecutive fiction release on the NYT List, which is hopeful, given that Dan Brown and Mitch Albom continue their mind numbing domination of the charts with some 200 weeks collectively. I can't believe it either. That's just sad.

[QUOTE=Dr.Jekyll&Mr.Hyde]Again my biggest criticism if with character development. It’s hard to keep focus on the various stories because I just can’t cling or sympathize with any character in particular.
[/QUOTE]
I think the "character development " issue is where readers in general, me included, have been making a mistake in assuming these are [I]characters[/I]. We are lead to assume they are by the way the opening of the book is structured. But then when I started to really read what was on the page and not my expecations, certain questions arose: Who gave all these voices their nicknames in the first place? I mean each gets on the bus and is introduced via the name of the suffering within their own story--stories which none of them have spoken yet. There are no characters in this book. Only the stories. The theater is Chuck's imagination and as in his use of "speaking bitterness" as a means of destroying the old horrors within the speaker, the stories are destroying themselves and each other in an attempt to get free of the over all suffering of the only storyteller in the book, Chuck. The attempt to lift this to a larger satire of reality television, was, maybe, Chuck taking the idea one metaphor too far.

Much of this book, these stories, I honestly found too over the top to even respond to with disgust, but much of the dissappoint in the "lack of protagonist" as so many of the media reviews, I believe, comes from the mistaken notion that [I]Haunted[/I] is a [I]novel[/I]. It is not a novel. You can shuffle the stories and reshuffle the stories and nothing changes. There is no overall novel narrrative schematic here.

This is a book of short stories and the linking concept is not really the rabid nature of fame or the banality of reality television. They are there to write and no one has brought any paper? We have a camera (the eye) and a tape recorder (the ear). The major sensory sources of a writer's material. The chef's story mentions editing; editors cut. Self-editing is a form of self-mutilation in hopes of making a better story made in hopes of publishing. [I]Haunted[/I] is a book of short stories, but the stories are still in utero, not yet on the page, cannablizing and competing with each other for voice within the writer's mind. These are the stories still in Chuck's imagination trying to win a right to appear on paper. To me, and I've given days of thought to this, [I]Haunted[/I] is a book of short stories set within a frame that illuminates the the very real horrors of writing.

When I look at the book that way, that in this case the Nightmare Box is the writer's, any writer's imagination, the thing that makes you want to write, then [I]Haunted[/I] as a whole makes more and more sense. Of course, that's probably just me trying to figure out what a writer as brilliant as Chuck is up to with a book that point-blank defies the reader to look inside.

[QUOTE=Dr.Jekyll&Mr.Hyde]Ouch park. That’s a stabbing review. I don’t think it’s at the level of atrocity you claim, although I have my own opinions.[/QUOTE]

Perhaps, but I hold authors with talent to a higher standard than I do those wothout it. I suppose it's in the level expected vs. the level received. I wouldn't review a Stephen King book as harshly for example, but then again, I wouldn't [I]read[/I] a Stephen King book again. So, Chuck succeeded on that level, I was just looking for more. Perhaps that's unfair, but that's how I judge things.

"Everyone is equal but some are [I]more[/I] equal."

[QUOTE=Luddy Dunn]I think the "character development " issue is where readers in general, me included, have been making a mistake in assuming these are [I]characters[/I]. We are lead to assume they are by the way the opening of the book is structured. But then when I started to really read what was on the page and not my expecations, certain questions arose: Who gave all these voices their nicknames in the first place? I mean each gets on the bus and is introduced via the name of the suffering within their own story--stories which none of them have spoken yet. There are no characters in this book. Only the stories. The theater is Chuck's imagination and as in his use of "speaking bitterness" as a means of destroying the old horrors within the speaker, the stories are destroying themselves and each other in an attempt to get free of the over all suffering of the only storyteller in the book, Chuck. The attempt to lift this to a larger satire of reality television, was, maybe, Chuck taking the idea one metaphor too far.

Much of this book, these stories, I honestly found too over the top to even respond to with disgust, but much of the dissappoint in the "lack of protagonist" as so many of the media reviews, I believe, comes from the mistaken notion that [I]Haunted[/I] is a [I]novel[/I]. It is not a novel. You can shuffle the stories and reshuffle the stories and nothing changes. There is no overall novel narrrative schematic here.

This is a book of short stories and the linking concept is not really the rabid nature of fame or the banality of reality television. They are there to write and no one has brought any paper? We have a camera (the eye) and a tape recorder (the ear). The major sensory sources of a writer's material. The chef's story mentions editing; editors cut. Self-editing is a form of self-mutilation in hopes of making a better story made in hopes of publishing. [I]Haunted[/I] is a book of short stories, but the stories are still in utero, not yet on the page, cannablizing and competing with each other for voice within the writer's mind. These are the stories still in Chuck's imagination trying to win a right to appear on paper. To me, and I've given days of thought to this, [I]Haunted[/I] is a book of short stories set within a frame that illuminates the the very real horrors of writing.

When I look at the book that way, that in this case the Nightmare Box is the writer's, any writer's imagination, the thing that makes you want to write, then [I]Haunted[/I] as a whole makes more and more sense. Of course, that's probably just me trying to figure out what a writer as brilliant as Chuck is up to with a book that point-blank defies the reader to look inside.[/QUOTE]
I agree in that my expectations certainly got in the way, but it's marketed as a novel, Chuck's calling it a novel and why go through the pretense of having a narrative frame if you aren't going to devlop it?

Has anyone come to more conclusions about who exactly is supposed to be narrating the book. My contention would be that it was the (King?) of Slander, since he had the notebook and the tapes kept being taped over. But, this seems like a conclusion that lacks any real evidence.

[QUOTE=Parkaboy]I agree in that my expectations certainly got in the way, but it's marketed as a novel, Chuck's calling it a novel and why go through the pretense of having a narrative frame if you aren't going to devlop it?

Has anyone come to more conclusions about who exactly is supposed to be narrating the book. My contention would be that it was the (King?) of Slander, since he had the notebook and the tapes kept being taped over. But, this seems like a conclusion that lacks any real evidence.[/QUOTE]
shit man.
i haven't finished, but i was hoping that the narrator's voice would come to light by the end. bullocks

if chuck had established at least one solid protagonist the overall story would work better.i was clinging to hope that he was concealing the voice for a reason..

[QUOTE=Dr.Jekyll&Mr.Hyde]shit man.
i haven't finished, but i was hoping that the narrator's voice would come to light by the end. bullocks

if chuck had established at least one solid protagonist the overall story would work better.i was clinging to hope that he was concealing the voice for a reason..[/QUOTE]
If there was a reason I missed it, beacuse I still can't figure out who was supposed to be narating the novel. And if then they were recounting the short stories.

[QUOTE=Parkaboy]I agree in that my expectations certainly got in the way, but it's marketed as a novel, Chuck's calling it a novel and why go through the pretense of having a narrative frame if you aren't going to devlop it?

Has anyone come to more conclusions about who exactly is supposed to be narrating the book. My contention would be that it was the (King?) of Slander, since he had the notebook and the tapes kept being taped over. But, this seems like a conclusion that lacks any real evidence.[/QUOTE]

If I take the lint from my dryer to the store to buy groceries and insist that the lint is money, doesn't mean I'm going be eating tonight.

Whoever made the decision to market [I]Haunted[/I] as a novel is responsible for a lot of the bad reviews. Whatever that book is, it is not a novel. A rock tumbler maybe. A wad of dryer lint maybe. But it is not a novel. The only character who comes close to being protagonist is Cassandra, who survives one of the earlier retreats, just barely and like her namesake, becomes a walking warning of disaster that no one believes.

As far as narrators go--Don't read beyond this Dr. J or Mr. H--spoilers.

The only "survivors" are Gut Free, Mother Nature, and Whittier (all of whom are doomed to die shortly). Whittier has been shut out of theater but the book ends from inside. Logically that leaves only four possible "we" narrators: Gut Free, Mom Nat who will, like their fellow "writers" seep into the structure of the theater, leaving shadows of themselves, stains in the carpet. Slander is dead by this point, so perhaps Gut Free or Mom rerecorded their version of what happend and that tape was found (shades of Survivor). The only way the "nicknames" could exist at the beginning is if someone recreated the whole story from the beginning after all the stories had been told. Therefore the narrator may be the combined voices of the ghosts/stories. Or the narrator is Chuck. My sense is the the narrator is Chuck, who is the voice in all the stories. That's why the voice in the stories never changes. [I] It's Chuck[/I]. That's why the poem before each is essentially the same. That is Chuck creating a storyteller who fits the story about to be told. And if I ever have to read the phrase "Instead of a spotlight, a movie fragment:" again....

Still I prefer to think of this as a really flawed attempt at something complex and unique rather than a cynical hall of mirrors where the writer is essentially torturing his readers for no purpose other than his own amusement.

[QUOTE=Luddy Dunn]If I take the lint from my dryer to the store to buy groceries and insist that the lint is money, doesn't mean I'm going be eating tonight.

Whoever made the decision to market [I]Haunted[/I] as a novel is responsible for a lot of the bad reviews. Whatever that book is, it is not a novel. A rock tumbler maybe. A wad of dryer lint maybe. But it is not a novel. The only character who comes close to being protagonist is Cassandra, who survives one of the earlier retreats, just barely and like her namesake, becomes a walking warning of disaster that no one believes.

As far as narrators go--Don't read beyond this Dr. J or Mr. H--spoilers.

The only "survivors" are Gut Free, Mother Nature, and Whittier (all of whom are doomed to die shortly). Whittier has been shut out of theater but the book ends from inside. Logically that leaves only four possible "we" narrators: Gut Free, Mom Nat who will, like their fellow "writers" seep into the structure of the theater, leaving shadows of themselves, stains in the carpet. Slander is dead by this point, so perhaps Gut Free or Mom rerecorded their version of what happend and that tape was found (shades of Survivor). The only way the "nicknames" could exist at the beginning is if someone recreated the whole story from the beginning after all the stories had been told. Therefore the narrator may be the combined voices of the ghosts/stories. Or the narrator is Chuck. My sense is the the narrator is Chuck, who is the voice in all the stories. That's why the voice in the stories never changes. [I] It's Chuck[/I]. That's why the poem before each is essentially the same. That is Chuck creating a storyteller who fits the story about to be told. And if I ever have to read the phrase "Instead of a spotlight, a movie fragment:" again....

Still I prefer to think of this as a really flawed attempt at something complex and unique rather than a cynical hall of mirrors where the writer is essentially torturing his readers for no purpose other than his own amusement.[/QUOTE]I don't think the narrator is supposed to be Chuck, I think you're being optimisitc there. I recall him saying something about using different voices in the shorts, or someone said that, maybe it was the AICN review. Anthologies generally don't sell as well as novels so that may be why he felt compelled to wrap his novella around the shorts, I don't know, a concession to marketing I suppose you could argue but my gut insticnt is that he wanted to do it this way from early on of his own accord.

OK, so Guts Free and Mother nature are the only two alive in the theater, so your theory about the tape recorder is probably accurate and would explain the "we" twice over as their are two narrating for 14(?)....

I wish he had been clear about that.

[QUOTE=Parkaboy]I don't think the narrator is supposed to be Chuck, I think you're being optimisitc there. I recall him saying something about using different voices in the shorts, or someone said that, maybe it was the AICN review. Anthologies generally don't sell as well as novels so that may be why he felt compelled to wrap his novella around the shorts, I don't know, a concession to marketing I suppose you could argue but my gut insticnt is that he wanted to do it this way from early on of his own accord.

OK, so Guts Free and Mother nature are the only two alive in the theater, so your theory about the tape recorder is probably accurate and would explain the "we" twice over as their are two narrating for 14(?)....

I wish he had been clear about that.[/QUOTE]

Well given what Gut Free has done to survive, according to his story and has somehow managed to keep going in spite of having to furiously keep eating in order to stay alive, I guess--giving up my Chuck theory--that the narrator is Gut Free rerecording over Slander's tapes, telling the most hideous version of the story that he could think of and those repetative, italicized [I]Something worse, something more terrible needs to happen [/I]could be G.F's interior thoughts, coaching himself to make it even more frightful. Could be GF murdered all the others, ate his way through the freeze drieds, lived like a king for 90 days, and fixed the lock so that when Whittier returned, he could not get in. A locksmith would be called and the lone survivor would be the always emaciated GF with his tale of horror. Guts is afterall the most famous story in the book. Maybe the reason the voices are all the same is because GF is telling all the stories. He would have had to occupy himself for three months. Do you recall the last image Tattletale recorded on the video camera. I can't remember and I'm too lazy to go look.

Parkie, I think your "anthologies don't sell well" analysis is brilliant and probably dead on. And also a reason for the extemity of the gore, violence, and depravity of the book. Much easier to sell tickets to a demolition derby where the cars are decorated with dead babies that it is to get people to attend a ballet for free. Hello America. Crap, publishing is a ulcer-making, soul-searing industry. And we are doing this again, why?

[QUOTE=Luddy Dunn]Parkie, I think your "anthologies don't sell well" analysis is brilliant and probably dead on. And also a reason for the extemity of the gore, violence, and depravity of the book. Much easier to sell tickets to a demolition derby where the cars are decorated with dead babies that it is to get people to attend a ballet for free. Hello America. Crap, publishing is a ulcer-making, soul-searing industry. And we are doing this again, why?[/QUOTE]Becuase sometimes you have to explore to disclose anything useful about being.

[QUOTE=Parkaboy]Becuase sometimes you have to explore to disclose anything useful about being.[/QUOTE]

Having considered this thought for nearly a full day, I have discovered that if I repeat your words, over and over, mantra like, all other thoughts are blocked from my mind and its like total white noise bliss. Pretty dang useful in the pursuit of avoiding being.

[QUOTE=Luddy Dunn]Having considered this thought for nearly a full day, I have discovered that if I repeat your words, over and over, mantra like, all other thoughts are blocked from my mind and its like total white noise bliss. Pretty dang useful in the pursuit of avoiding being.[/QUOTE]
I wish it could work for me.

iPods, cell phones, Gameboys and PDA's also have a like effect.

certainly no one cares, but chuck's recent [url=http://film.guardian.co.uk/features/featurepages/0,4120,1487580,00.html]review of "cuckoo's nest"[/url], with his whole argument about finding a third option and disappearing into your self-created reality goes to support my assertion about chuck's not choosing to make writing these complex, personal novels the main focus of his life like it must have one time been.

anyways, that's all.

[QUOTE=jody]certainly no one cares, but chuck's recent [url=http://film.guardian.co.uk/features/featurepages/0,4120,1487580,00.html]review of "cuckoo's nest"[/url], with his whole argument about finding a third option and disappearing into your self-created reality goes to support my assertion about chuck's not choosing to make writing these complex, personal novels the main focus of his life like it must have one time been.

anyways, that's all.[/QUOTE]
That was my point as well, 220 some odd posts ago.

[QUOTE=Parkaboy]What "dream life" are you talking about?

I don't think anyone is looking at living the life of their dreams.[/QUOTE]

ironic, isn't it?

doesn't the fact that so many good points have been made in this thread concerning characterization and the narrative voice indicate that chuck is more interested now in posing problems than answering. and that if this is the case, it's still an utterly honest, personal statement.

[QUOTE=jody]ironic, isn't it?

doesn't the fact that so many good points have been made in this thread concerning characterization and the narrative voice indicate that chuck is more interested now in posing problems than answering. and that if this is the case, it's still an utterly honest, personal statement.[/QUOTE]
I think we're reading more into the text than is there by design.

[QUOTE=jody]ironic, isn't it?

doesn't the fact that so many good points have been made in this thread concerning characterization and the narrative voice indicate that chuck is more interested now in posing problems than answering. and that if this is the case, it's still an utterly honest, personal statement.[/QUOTE]

See, that's what I'm finding most fascinating about the book now--nothing within the book but the fact this book exists at all. The why of it? The way it works? It's like those puzzle boxes that if you push the ornamentation in certain pattern it will open up. I agree, point-by-point almost absolutely with Parkaboy's first review. When held up against a traditional novel narrative template--Haunted ain't it. And a satire of reality TV, yeah, but talking about beating a dead horse. We all know this about reality TV. And Chuck knows that we know. I cannot shake the sense that if you figure out the right way to look at the book, one hand on each handle, left eye to the view finder, when the ticking stops, push the button. Tess Clarke was trying to figure out how it worked on Cassandra.

I loved the first third of the book and could not care less one way or the other about the stories or the resolution. But I love the fact that book has me up at nights trying to figure out what very smart Mr. P is ultimately up to. Because dang, if you've decided novels aren't important to you any longer then just stop writing. Most people do not write a book to rationalize why they are no longer going to write books.

I may be looking a spill of rice grains and trying to make puzzle pieces out of nothing, but still those rice grains have a source and they themselves are a source of future rice. This is the most fun I've had with a book in a long time.

Just to clarify, its not a satire of reality TV. Thats straight from Chuck's mouth to my ears. The publishers made that up.

[QUOTE=Luddy Dunn]See, that's what I'm finding most fascinating about the book now--nothing within the book but the fact this book exists at all. The why of it? The way it works? It's like those puzzle boxes that if you push the ornamentation in certain pattern it will open up. I agree, point-by-point almost absolutely with Parkaboy's first review. When held up against a traditional novel narrative template--Haunted ain't it. And a satire of reality TV, yeah, but talking about beating a dead horse. We all know this about reality TV. And Chuck knows that we know. I cannot shake the sense that if you figure out the right way to look at the book, one hand on each handle, left eye to the view finder, when the ticking stops, push the button. Tess Clarke was trying to figure out how it worked on Cassandra.

I loved the first third of the book and could not care less one way or the other about the stories or the resolution. But I love the fact that book has me up at nights trying to figure out what very smart Mr. P is ultimately up to. Because dang, if you've decided novels aren't important to you any longer then just stop writing. Most people do not write a book to rationalize why they are no longer going to write books.

I may be looking a spill of rice grains and trying to make puzzle pieces out of nothing, but still those rice grains have a source and they themselves are a source of future rice. This is the most fun I've had with a book in a long time.[/QUOTE]I think we should all sign up for the Barnes & Noble class and see what the man himself says about what he was wanting to say with this one.

I'm leading next month's discussion groups for book club on it, I've got some notes, I'll add your thoughts too, Luddy.

I rerally hope he had some sort of oblique purpose that wasn't immediately apparent to me.

Either way, this thread alone proves that there is much to discuss.

[QUOTE=sacredchao23]Just to clarify, its not a satire of reality TV. Thats straight from Chuck's mouth to my ears. The publishers made that up.[/QUOTE]OK. What else did he tell you?

It's still making a satirical run at what people will do for fame, to be noticed, to be validated though, as near as I can tell. Perhaps that isn't his primary purpose, but that motive is in there I'd think.

[QUOTE=sacredchao23]Just to clarify, its not a satire of reality TV. Thats straight from Chuck's mouth to my ears. The publishers made that up.[/QUOTE]

Completely strung out on caffiene here and only one third of the way into my all night sudden-death deadline ordeal. So am I working...?

Okay, speak the truth and shame the devil. I will testify before the congregation: Publishers will make up all sorts of crap to bait the hook of the public's attention. If the writer says, uh, no, that's not what I meant, I'd take that at face value. I will also confess to assuming that the satire was of reality TV because that's what I'd read in the press. But reading the book, and it being set at a writers' retreat, the send up seemed to be aimed more at the sensationalistic memoirs that clog up the shelves. The stories are all based on "character" memories. Memoir is nearly impossible to do well because we make up our memories to suit our needs and so all memory is essentially fiction. (and I can go for hours on that one.)

Weirdly--and everyone here who writes must have experienced this one--your own stuff will change its shape and meaning and significance, even when completed, depending on how you are feeling about the world on the day when you are asked to explain what the monster you made is supposed to do.

[QUOTE=Luddy Dunn]

Weirdly--and everyone here who writes must have experienced this one--your own stuff will change its shape and meaning and significance, even when completed, depending on how you are feeling about the world on the day when you are asked to explain what the monster you made is supposed to do.[/QUOTE]

Yes, or when a reader points out a brilliant connection you made between A and B...

"yeah, right... that's[I] exactly [/I] what I meant... what you said, yeah, lots of that."

I think a fair of literature's content can be ascibed more to criticism then the original intent of the author.

The wildly divergent takes on Pynchon's work are a good example of this.

[QUOTE=Parkaboy]Yes, or when a reader points out a brilliant connection you made between A and B...

"yeah, right... that's[I] exactly [/I] what I meant... what you said, yeah, lots of that."

I think a fair of literature's content can be ascibed more to criticism then the original intent of the author.

The wildly divergent takes on Pynchon's work are a good example of this.[/QUOTE]

Reginald McKnight's (look him up, beloved teacher, superb writer) Law of Accidental Genius: If it works, of course you did it on purpose because that's the kind of freaking genius you are.

This is a good interview (linked in another threadas well) and relevant [I]Haunted[/I] in particular.

[url]http://trashotron.com/agony/news/2005/05-23-05.htm#052405[/url]

All I can say is the stories in Haunted made me smile and squirm more than anything else I've ever seen / heard / read.

It didn't lead me to a grand realization about the nature of humanity. It was lacking a social commentary on the effects of corporate globalization in relation to feminist attitudes in a post-modern society.

What it had was universal ideas capable of catching the attention of anyone, anywhere. Seriously, no matter what language [i]Haunted[/i] gets translated to, it's going to drop the jaws of that respective culture. Call it shock value if you want, but what's [i]1984[/i] if it isn't shocking?

It's a lot closer to a demolition derby than a ballet but I'll go to twenty more Derbys before I ever go to another ballet because that's what appeals to the people I know and love. That's what they can connect to. Likewise, I'll read a story from [i]Haunted[/i] at an open mic night before I'll read a passage out of [i]I am Asher Lev[/i].

Let's say a writer manages to record what he/she consdiers the deepest, most profound philosophical truth. If the idea is meaningful only to the elite literature professor, how succesful was the author? If both that professor and the guy who drinks Coors under his stuffed moose's head and watches his belly grow, if both of those guys say "Holy Shit!" after reading "The Ritual" (Where the nazi officer cuts off his own dick in the gypsy's throat), then that's a successful story.

It might not have a whole lot of value past entertainment, but what's more valuable to people than being entertained? In the Depression of the 1930's, when almost half of America couldn't afford Room and Board, the movie theatres and vaudeville stages saw almost no drop in ticket sales.

And on top of all this, Comrade Snarky eats her own ass!

[QUOTE=MaybeIllCatchFire]No offense, but I found this review quite pretentious and pessimistic, but that seems to be the trend with most of the people that frequent this site. Just because Chuck has begun to slip into the mainstream all of you people, instead of enjoying the book, will just find every little thing to criticize. I'd like to see any of you put out as many great stories as Chuck has and still manage to keep writing and [I]not[/I] go crazy. (Although I I think Chuck crossed that fine line into insanity a long time ago.) All I'm trying to say is, lighten up. Or shut your mouth and [I]you[/I] get out there and start writing such quality novels as Chuck has.[/QUOTE]
owned.

[QUOTE=walkingcontradiction]owned.[/QUOTE]

that's pretty fiesty for a first post.

is it fair to say that maybeillcatchfire is inflammatory?

wooo hooo! yes! joke of my life!!!!!!!

i am so smart! i am so smart! S-M-R-T!!!!

[QUOTE=MaybeIllCatchFire]No offense, but I found this review quite pretentious and pessimistic, but that seems to be the trend with most of the people that frequent this site. Just because Chuck has begun to slip into the mainstream all of you people, instead of enjoying the book, will just find every little thing to criticize. I'd like to see any of you put out as many great stories as Chuck has and still manage to keep writing and [I]not[/I] go crazy. (Although I I think Chuck crossed that fine line into insanity a long time ago.) All I'm trying to say is, lighten up. Or shut your mouth and [I]you[/I] get out there and start writing such quality novels as Chuck has.[/QUOTE]

I can see how it would read that way, but Parkaboy and a lot of those who frequent the site are very serious writers, who like very serious magicians already understand misdirection and drama and suspension of disbelief. What interests us is execution of the trick. I'm sure it reads as dismissive, but having known Parkie for a while now, his review reads more like someone who feels the trick of the books was a cheat. Smoke and mirrors, rather than close magic. We anticipate close magic from Chuck.

How is this for example by extreme opposition? When French pilot extraordinare Antoine de St. Expurey published [I]The Little Prince[/I], after several memoirs of his adventures in the sky, no one knew what to make of it. Critics did not know how to review the book, so they panned it. Readers of his regular works, had no idea how to read it. So they turned away. It was the truth from an unexpected source. It now towers as a giant of literary accomplishment. When the [I]Wizard of Oz [/I]was made into a film, the response to the film was awful. It died at the box office. And now? Many lit theory types holds that one single film as the touchstone which teaches Americans what it means to be American.

If you are going to play with form, you are going to get grief for the play. I agree with almost every one of Parkie's objections--and yet I can't stop thinking about the book. I don't want to read it again, ever. But something larger than I know how to appreciate at the moment may be happening on those pages. The book shows up in my dreams. And the part that seeps into my dreams is the fact at a certain point of horror, I tune out. I just didn't care what happened to anyone. For we who live in a 24 hour news cycle of spectacular, spectacular--I am beginning to believe that might be Chuck's real point. We accept suffering as necessary. And it is not.

I'm glad you are here. It is good to hear the counterpoint. Sorry to ramble on like this. But you are new. Anyone will tell you that this is what I tend to do.

[QUOTE=MaybeIllCatchFire]No offense, but I found this review quite pretentious and pessimistic, but that seems to be the trend with most of the people that frequent this site. Just because Chuck has begun to slip into the mainstream all of you people, instead of enjoying the book, will just find every little thing to criticize. I'd like to see any of you put out as many great stories as Chuck has and still manage to keep writing and [I]not[/I] go crazy. (Although I I think Chuck crossed that fine line into insanity a long time ago.) All I'm trying to say is, lighten up. Or shut your mouth and [I]you[/I] get out there and start writing such quality novels as Chuck has.[/QUOTE]
Working on it, Chickie.

[QUOTE=NineInchNads]All I can say is the stories in Haunted made me smile and squirm more than anything else I've ever seen / heard / read.

It didn't lead me to a grand realization about the nature of humanity. It was lacking a social commentary on the effects of corporate globalization in relation to feminist attitudes in a post-modern society.

What it had was universal ideas capable of catching the attention of anyone, anywhere. Seriously, no matter what language [i]Haunted[/i] gets translated to, it's going to drop the jaws of that respective culture. Call it shock value if you want, but what's [i]1984[/i] if it isn't shocking?

It's a lot closer to a demolition derby than a ballet but I'll go to twenty more Derbys before I ever go to another ballet because that's what appeals to the people I know and love. That's what they can connect to. Likewise, I'll read a story from [i]Haunted[/i] at an open mic night before I'll read a passage out of [i]I am Asher Lev[/i].

Let's say a writer manages to record what he/she consdiers the deepest, most profound philosophical truth. If the idea is meaningful only to the elite literature professor, how succesful was the author? If both that professor and the guy who drinks Coors under his stuffed moose's head and watches his belly grow, if both of those guys say "Holy Shit!" after reading "The Ritual" (Where the nazi officer cuts off his own dick in the gypsy's throat), then that's a successful story.

It might not have a whole lot of value past entertainment, but what's more valuable to people than being entertained? In the Depression of the 1930's, when almost half of America couldn't afford Room and Board, the movie theatres and vaudeville stages saw almost no drop in ticket sales.

And on top of all this, Comrade Snarky eats her own ass![/QUOTE]Well, first of all there is plent of room between the elite realm of philosophical discourse and the simply profane, it isn't all or nothing and I didn't mean to imply that it need be. Fight Club, Survivor, Invisible Monsters and Choke all tackled big issues and were still accessible, shocking and thought provoking.

As for 1984, well, gee, aside from shocking? Hmm...it was a condemnation and a warning of against communism, it was an accurate prediction of future technologies, it was a treatise on the ability of social constructs and government to crush the human soul, it was a book that influenced a generation of writers and it remains relevant 57 years later for both the same and different reasons it was relevant in 1948. But aside from that, nothing really.

[QUOTE=wellookatme]hallo everybody peeps.

possible SPOILER alert.

at the risk of sounding like a right ticko- what the fun is going on at the end? are they the only survivors? has miss sneezy's cold gone and killed off the world? has everyone else gone to venus? maybe, THEY are in the black box? please explain someone. would like to know what people think.[/QUOTE]

Well, we've gone round in circles on that one as well. Personally, the only ending I can make peace with, is that none of it happened. That whomever is the storyteller, Sir Gut Free or Whittier or perhaps even just Chuck himself, that very much like Survivor (assuming you've read that), you've got one guy with a tape recorder who is telling us the story of the writers' retreat, making it all up from the very beginning. How else would they know each other's stage names upon entering the bus at the beginning? In other words there was no retreat. just a writer making up the most horrible set of stories he could create in order to comment on how we keep needing larger hits of horror. The book is the Nightmare Box and looking into it, it makes us want to be writers by forcing us, like Cassandra, to "write" our own understanding of what we've just been through. [I]Haunted[/I] is a book about creating a book called [I]Haunted[/I]. I know that is mad tea party logic, but it is the only understanding that seems to hang together, for me, in terms of what Chuck put on the page.

But this of course is only my writing of one possible way of looking at the ending.

[QUOTE=Luddy Dunn]Well, we've gone round in circles on that one as well. Personally, the only ending I can make peace with, is that none of it happened. That whomever is the storyteller, Sir Gut Free or Whittier or perhaps even just Chuck himself, that very much like Survivor (assuming you've read that), you've got one guy with a tape recorder who is telling us the story of the writers' retreat, making it all up from the very beginning. How else would they know each other's stage names upon entering the bus at the beginning? In other words there was no retreat. just a writer making up the most horrible set of stories he could create in order to comment on how we keep needing larger hits of horror. The book is the Nightmare Box and looking into it, it makes us want to be writers by forcing us, like Cassandra, to "write" our own understanding of what we've just been through. [I]Haunted[/I] is a book about creating a book called [I]Haunted[/I]. I know that is mad tea party logic, but it is the only understanding that seems to hang together, for me, in terms of what Chuck put on the page.

But this of course is only my writing of one possible way of looking at the ending.[/QUOTE]
I think your first idea that Gut-Free wrote it after the fact was the right one. I doubt Chuck intended it to be a fictional story within the confines of the novel itself. I am interested to see if he was, at the same time, writing a Haunted [I]about[/I] writing Haunted. I tend to doubt it since the characters didn't really write while they were there and their expiation of pain seemed to lead to only more of it.

[QUOTE]Parkie, I think your "anthologies don't sell well" analysis is brilliant and probably dead on. And also a reason for the extemity of the gore, violence, and depravity of the book. Much easier to sell tickets to a demolition derby where the cars are decorated with dead babies that it is to get people to attend a ballet for free. Hello America. Crap, publishing is a ulcer-making, soul-searing industry. And we are doing this again, why?[/QUOTE]

I'd like to think chuck isn't putting the novella wrapping on the collection purely for marketing reasons. He’s said countless times that he’s coping the idea from some author I can’t recall. Maybe that’s just my idealistic clown getting the better of me. dunno :confused:

i favor the idea of 2 people being the 14. I read this at such fractured intervals its been hard to piece together and justfing the ending.
[QUOTE=jody]certainly no one cares, but chuck's recent [url=http://film.guardian.co.uk/features/featurepages/0,4120,1487580,00.html]review of "cuckoo's nest"[/url], with his whole argument about finding a third option and disappearing into your self-created reality goes to support my assertion about chuck's not choosing to make writing these complex, personal novels the main focus of his life like it must have one time been.
anyways, that's all.[/QUOTE]
Jody man, hell ya! Read cooko many moon ago. It’ll be a treat to read chuck’s take on it

[QUOTE=Luddy Dunn]See, that's what I'm finding most fascinating about the book now--nothing within the book but the fact this book exists at all. The why of it? The way it works? It's like those puzzle boxes that if you push the ornamentation in certain pattern it will open up. I agree, point-by-point almost absolutely with Parkaboy's first review. When held up against a traditional novel narrative template--Haunted ain't it. And a satire of reality TV, yeah, but talking about beating a dead horse. We all know this about reality TV. And Chuck knows that we know. I cannot shake the sense that if you figure out the right way to look at the book, one hand on each handle, left eye to the view finder, when the ticking stops, push the button. Tess Clarke was trying to figure out how it worked on Cassandra.

I loved the first third of the book and could not care less one way or the other about the stories or the resolution. But I love the fact that book has me up at nights trying to figure out what very smart Mr. P is ultimately up to. Because dang, if you've decided novels aren't important to you any longer then just stop writing. Most people do not write a book to rationalize why they are no longer going to write books.

I may be looking a spill of rice grains and trying to make puzzle pieces out of nothing, but still those rice grains have a source and they themselves are a source of future rice. This is the most fun I've had with a book in a long time.[/QUOTE]

I will say that this is my favorite chuck book because it is so experimental and it subverts the typical expectation of a novel.

I’m not a big fan of chucks writing style; to tell the truth I like eloquent/poetic prose. One of my favorite contemporary author’s is Toni Morrison. I like her style and I also like the fact that her novels aren’t the standard: beginning ,middle, and end. When I finished [I]love [/I] I was confused as hell, but the narrative stayed with me, and I started to put pieces together long after I finished it. What I want from a story or novel is something that stays with me after reading: [I]haunted [/I] does that.

I work with books. Countless people by mounds of novels. When they return them they rarely can discern one story from the next, let alone the author. They basically read for the satisfaction of getting a beginning, middle, and end. (Granted for the most part these are people that read contemporary popular fiction.)

I’ll stand by [I]haunted [/I] because I think chuck is experimenting and playing with the audience’s expectations. That’s why I keep reading chuck, his willingness to experiment, not his actual subject material or its depth. (Although chuck tends to tackle my favorite theme a lot: [I]Death[/I].)

On the down side there’s only so much of chuck I can read before I start getting heavy lids. There’s only so much visceral detail I can stand before it gets tedious. [I]Haunted [/I] got tedious, for me there's too much head athority. There’s only so much shit, blood, cum, fucking, and FOOD I can look at before I start nodding off. it gets redudant.. I know what he’s doing. One of the horses is “digestion” or how we “process” life or experience, or "stories" if you will. And you always get a gut reaction of revulsion when you parallel food with bodily waste and what not.

I hate food, so the imagery didn’t bother me.
So again what I love about [I]haunted [/I] is the concept, experimentation, and overall outlandish imagination the seeped through it, it does have mythological undertones. one of the last lines is: "The Mythology of US."
.

[QUOTE=Parkaboy]I think we should all sign up for the Barnes & Noble class and see what the man himself says about what he was wanting to say with this one.[/QUOTE]
hell ya park. The diary class was a blast and if you want direct answers best to ask the man himself. I’m just waiting for the announcement to sigh on. For the most part he answered every question I had about diary.

I think chuck still has his bite and is throwing out a book with edge, this thread is a simple example—no?

Park and LD good analysis of the ending. Is there a thread in the book club now?I finished two days ago and the ending has me brooding. I do fancy the whole two telling 14 idea.

NADS will respond to your commits after work

[QUOTE=Dr.Jekyll&Mr.Hyde]I'd like to think chuck isn't putting the novella wrapping on the collection purely for marketing reasons. He’s said countless times that he’s coping the idea from some author I can’t recall. Maybe that’s just my idealistic clown getting the better of me. dunno :confused:

Park and LD good analysis of the ending. Is there a thread in the book club now?I finished two days ago and the ending has me brooding. I do fancy the whole two telling 14 idea.

NADS will respond to your commits after work :)[/QUOTE]

He said in an audio interview that his publisher told him he couldn't sell an anthology, and the interviewer asked, :Even yours?" and he said yeah, so he said he wrapped a novel he had written around the shorts. So I do believe the initial impetus was marketing.

I'm running the book club thing on the 14th I think, messaged Moe with things to think about, I don't know if she messages those to you or not.

[QUOTE=erakb]SPOILER
I guess I didn't see anything [i]that[/i] complex going on in the ending. Sneezy was going with Whittier so they killed her, sealing themselves inside so they [I]could[/I] be the only survivors.

And the reason we know everyone's name from the beginning is simply because there are so many characters, that Chuck had to start getting us used to them. Heck, if he didn't give them those nicknames there'd be no way to tell them apart. The narrator throughout is simply the collective conscience of everyone at the retreat. I guess it feels to me like everyone is reading way too much into a deeper meaning behind the frame story that just isn't there. Of course, I'm probably wrong.[/QUOTE]I agree that we're reading more into it, but Chuck is usually very sure who his narrators are, so I'm inclined to believe the book is a tape recording after the story and that one it was made, mopst likely, by Guts-Free.

[QUOTE=e-j]I'd like to think chuck isn't putting the novella wrapping on the collection purely for marketing reasons. He’s said countless times that he’s coping the idea from some author I can’t recall.[/QUOTE]

I do believe Chuck said it would not feel right if Tom Spanbauer was not included

Really dizzy today, my equilibrium has cancer or something, but I want to know if SPIKE wrote a review for this bloody book (haha). He's the horror expert around these woods--no?

I finished reading the book on Tuesday and was debating whether to comment on it now or wait another week until the book club discussion, but decided that since the book and this rather lengthy thread are both fresh in my mind I'll comment on it right now.

So, my thought at the beginning of the book was, "well, it's very... Chuck." I thought it was alright, but didn't like it all that much.

I agree with Parkaboy's comment (somewhere) that you guys might be reading more into the text than you're supposed to. But I just don't like to read into things too much.

Luddy- the Cassandra thing [I]was[/I] cool. But it was weird that [spoiler] in the end it was her mother that killed her. I mean, it totally worked with the story and stuff, but there must have been a better way to end it. It was almost... typical... of the book to end the story that way.

Parkaboy- about the whole thing with who the narrator is, I, personally, don't think that it's one of the characters from the book. I'm thinking that maybe it's something along the lines of the narration in The Virgin Suicides, where it's also "we," except that while it works in The Virgin Suicides, that sort of thing doesn't reall work for Haunted because in The Virgin Suicides it was talking about a group whereas in Haunted they're all individuals and aren't really all united in their thoughts or whatnot. But that's just my opinion.

Other thoughts:
You know how for a while the stories were just an elaboration on the poems? And then they stopped being that. And half the time I kind of wished they (the stories) elaborated on those poems because it was kind of like one of those previews on TV ("this week on [name of show here]...") which show you snippets of the upcoming episode but don't really tell you much about it and you have to watch the show to find out what happens. But in the case of the book the episode didn't exist. And that kind of bothered me, especially since it was different with the first few stories. I guess it's kind of that whole thing about how the characters weren't very developed or whatever the comment was.

The book started going faster for me later on. Not sure why. Had a bit of a hard time getting into it.

As a story, I liked "Slumming." That is, while it took me a while to get through the beginning, I had no trouble reading that story and rather enjoyed it.

The single thing that bothered me the [I]most[/I] about the book was a bit on page 139:
[QUOTE]"Before you get fired,' Mrs. Clark says, "you train this new
[INDENT]person by telling her..."[/INDENT]
[INDENT]Don't touch. Hot![/INDENT]
[INDENT]Feet off the sofa![/INDENT]
[INDENT]And--never buy [I]anything[/I] with a nylon zipper.[/INDENT][/QUOTE]
Why did it bother me so much? Well. One of my favourite quotes from Fight Club:
[QUOTE]My father always said, "Get married before the sex gets boring, or you'll never get married."
My mother said, "Never buy anything with a nylon zipper."
My parents never said anything you'd want to embroider on a cushion.[/QUOTE]