Parkaboy's Review **SPOILERS**

That last bit, it's weird how often writers will repaet themselves almost verbatim. Many of them do it and it seems from their own comments when asked about such and such, that it's sub-conscious.

For me, I know when I'm ripping my own shit off. Or, I think I do at any rate.

[QUOTE=Ballerina]I
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 single thing that bothered me the [I]most[/I] about the book was a bit on page 139:

Why did it bother me so much? Well. One of my favourite quotes from Fight Club:[/QUOTE]
That's a great catch on the last bit.

The poems are what bothered me the most. If felt like and easy way to drop description (just character notes with a twist). And for me they were just to detached from the narrative to really take them seriously.

[QUOTE=Ballerina]
I agree with Parkaboy's comment (somewhere) that you guys might be reading more into the text than you're supposed to.[/quote]

Yeah, we are. But you know what it's like going out with a guy for about six months and knowing rationally that it's not working, he's got none of that necessary romantic chemistry but you really like him a lot and you keep making lists of rationalizations for not saying, sorry, this wasn't meant to be?

I really wanted to love this book. I still do. I don't want it to be as lacking as rational me is saying it is. The poems don't work--except in a sort of referential way to the Decameron and Canterbury Tales which were told in verse. And I know I'm about to start a Holy War (not in this thread I hope), but the minimalism that works beautifully in short fiction is a tough go at novel length--unless the novel itself is set with the time retraints that make minimalism necessary. The plane going down in Survivor. The Narrator's nervous breakdown in Fight Club. The real problem with Haunted lies in two self-defeating narrative choices. The "characters" are in the theater by free choice and the time frame of 3 months is too specific. The Whittier character was a mistake. The "writers" should have arrived at the theater, been locked in to find none of the promised provisions, only rations for a fraction of their number and with a note saying they had to tell the the story that would set them free. Any real writer knows that telling stories sets you free from nothing--if anything a good story brings you closer to understanding there is no way out of "this" but death. As written there is nothing on the line in Haunted--except for Mrs. Clark who only wanted to know what happened to her daughter so badly that she was willing to kill Cassandra because she couldn't bear living with a unsolvable puzzle. And for me, Ballerina, that did work because, well, look at me killing this book trying to understand why its not what [I]I [/I]want it to be.

Crap, I really didn't mean to go on like that (this time). Double Crap, Palahniuk, to paraphrase the song from a few years back: everything I want and everything I need, but it means nothing to me and I don't know why.

[QUOTE=Luddy Dunn]Yeah, we are. But you know what it's like going out with a guy for about six months and knowing rationally that it's not working, he's got none of that necessary romantic chemistry but you really like him a lot and you keep making lists of rationalizations for not saying, sorry, this wasn't meant to be?

I really wanted to love this book. I still do. I don't want it to be as lacking as rational me is saying it is. The poems don't work--except in a sort of referential way to the Decameron and Canterbury Tales which were told in verse. And I know I'm about to start a Holy War (not in this thread I hope), but the minimalism that works beautifully in short fiction is a tough go at novel length--unless the novel itself is set with the time retraints that make minimalism necessary. The plane going down in Survivor. The Narrator's nervous breakdown in Fight Club. The real problem with Haunted lies in two self-defeating narrative choices. The "characters" are in the theater by free choice and the time frame of 3 months is too specific. The Whittier character was a mistake. The "writers" should have arrived at the theater, been locked in to find none of the promised provisions, only rations for a fraction of their number and with a note saying they had to tell the the story that would set them free. Any real writer knows that telling stories sets you free from nothing--if anything a good story brings you closer to understanding there is no way out of "this" but death. As written there is nothing on the line in Haunted--except for Mrs. Clark who only wanted to know what happened to her daughter so badly that she was willing to kill Cassandra because she couldn't bear living with a unsolvable puzzle. And for me, Ballerina, that did work because, well, look at me killing this book trying to understand why its not what [I]I [/I]want it to be.

Crap, I really didn't mean to go on like that (this time). Double Crap, Palahniuk, to paraphrase the song from a few years back: everything I want and everything I need, but it means nothing to me and I don't know why.[/QUOTE]
That's why this book doesn't work for a lot of people. It would have been more believable if the situation was involuntary.

But that feels too clique and overdone. We've all heard the story of a group of people being trapped with little food and it's only a matter of time before they are pushed to extremes. In this case chuck is mocking that kind of story--no?. The reason they're starving to death is because they sabotage themselves in order to SELL the perfect TRADGY.

hell with it... can't talk about this book anymore

The Haunted Book Club discussion is here for June: [url]http://www.chuckpalahniuk.net/community/showthread.php?p=654347#post654347[/url]

Be there or be square, Daddios.

havent we already discussed the hell out of it for the past 10 + pages ?
whats left ?

[QUOTE=karbunkle]havent we already discussed the hell out of it for the past 10 + pages ?
whats left ?[/QUOTE]
This:

While the blurb/synopsis likens Haunted to Chaucer's Canterbury Tales, Chuck himself says his main inspiration was A Chorus Line and The Masque of Red Death (all inspired by The Decameron). Keep them in mind and the way the books make use of a situation in which people are trapped. For example: the pilgrims have a long journey together, the writers cannot leave the theater, and the nobles remain in their estates. How does this crucible of place and togetherness tighten the tension and the story?

Chuck constantly references the now famous gathering at the Chapuis in Geneva, Switzerland. During this extended house party Mary Shelly conceived Frankenstein: The Modern Prometheus. More than a horror novel, Frankenstein was a comment on the society of her age and the beginnings of the industrial revolution. Think about the ways in which Chuck uses the horrors of Haunted to expose failings/dangers in modern society, specifically with the way modern society and modern technology collide--i.e. the tape recorder, the camera, the desire for fame and the destruction of modern conveniences by the writers.

Is Chuck attempting, in your opinion, to comment on the relentless pursuit of attention through more and more shocking means and, if so, by using such shocking means himself, does the artist in anyway become part of the very thing he sets out to critique?
What motivates us and the characters to turn the worst aspects of ourselves into some sort of proxy validation from a public venue? What are the consequences of this in micro society (the writers) or a macro society (contemporary America)? If validation by the public is a surrogate fix, what does it replace?

How does Chuck make use of the seven deadly sins (Pride, Avarice, Envy, Wrath, Lust, Gluttony, Sloth) through the short back stories of the writers and the connective metastory between them? Which character or event do you think might represent each sin?

Haunted puts forth the thesis that by telling your story, by expiating it publicly, one can move beyond the pains of their past. Do you think this is true? Why or why not?

In what ways can Haunted be seen as a deconstruction of the modern novel?

What do you think was in The Nightmare Box?

Chuck frequently addresses the idea of objectification and inanimateness (The Exodus, Speaking Bitter, etc.) what is he suggesting by these corollaries between people and things? What other authors use this theme and how is it relevant to modern life?

How important do you think the shock factor is in capturing the modern reader’s attention in an age of so much background noise? Could this be why the writers themselves go to such desperate lengths? Do you find the use of the shock value effective?

The narrative is written in a sort of first-person plural form--"WE." Who do you think ultimately was the narrator of the book?

Think about the ending, particularly the last "story," how does this effect the rest of the book in reflection and what do you think Chuck is saying here?

Several times in the novel, our world is likened to a rock tumbler, preparing us for the next step. What do you think Chuck is exploring here? The individual past of a person, history, or the possibility of an afterlife?

So there.

Anyone done with the book, join the damn bookclub and post if the Haunted thread. If you are already [I]in[/I] the book club, be ashamed of yourselves, this is the goddman Chuck Website for Christ sakes!

[QUOTE=Parkaboy]Anyone done with the book, join the damn bookclub and post if the Haunted thread. If you are already [I]in[/I] the book club, be ashamed of yourselves, this is the goddman Chuck Website for Christ sakes![/QUOTE]
I'm thinking that whoever suggested that the questions may be a little intimidating was right. I, personally, didn't think about the book that carefully. Mind you, I didn't read the questions before reading the book, but still. I have no clue how to answer just about all of those. Except that I maintain that none of the characters introduced to the reader were supposed to be the narrator.

[QUOTE=Ballerina]I'm thinking that whoever suggested that the questions may be a little intimidating was right. I, personally, didn't think about the book that carefully. Mind you, I didn't read the questions before reading the book, but still. I have no clue how to answer just about all of those. Except that I maintain that none of the characters introduced to the reader were supposed to be the narrator.[/QUOTE]
Go to the Book Club thread anyway.

Yeah, I've been meaning to go back to it. Good thing I posted in this thread when I finished reading the book, though, because I wouldn't really have had anything to say in the book club thread seeing as I don't have any answers to the questions.

[QUOTE=Ballerina]Yeah, I've been meaning to go back to it. Good thing I posted in this thread when I finished reading the book, though, because I wouldn't really have had anything to say in the book club thread seeing as I don't have any answers to the questions.[/QUOTE]
You don't need answers to the questions, you just need to talk about the book.