Question about the logic

Basically the book said after anything happens that could happen two ways, two realities branch off from it. Read the book again, it talks about how instead of the present changing to accomidating the past, the past changes to accomidate the present. I wish I could express this in a less annoying way, but it's a stupid question that's covered in the book, so go and read the book again and stop attacking me. I'm going to sleep.

I remember reading that, but that's so loose and general. I was hoping for a better thought out explanation from Chuck.

[QUOTE=AmericanClone;975846]I remember reading that, but that's so loose and general. I was hoping for a better thought out explanation from Chuck.[/QUOTE]

it's book one of a trilogy give it some time

After thinking about the explanation though, I don't see any evidence that the present keeps from changing in order to accommodate the past:
Rant becoming a superhuman in the present, Wax becoming a god by killing his mom and dad, Neddy going back to prevent the I-SEE-U Act so on. These all seem to be the present changing to accommodate the past.
That would have worked in a general way, meaning the present has to stay the same no matter what happens in the past, but it simply doesn't do that in the book.

It's true though, it is a trilogy so hopefully he'll explain more. However, it would be nice to be able to read this book as a whole without him leaving holes in the logic (not trying to be clever with the "whole, hole" thing). Again, maybe i missed something, but so far any explanation i have heard or come up with seems too loose or too much of a stretch to really explain much.

I think the whole book is sort of explained by whichever character is saying that maybe Rant isn't everything they say. Maybe Rant is built up to be this or that, much in the way it happened with someone like jesus or John Henry.
Most of the point of the narrative style using short interviews was to leave things a little open.
So if you're looking for closure and science, read H.G. Wells' The Time Machine, not this book.

[QUOTE=tomstrong83;975866]I think the whole book is sort of explained by whichever character is saying that maybe Rant isn't everything they say. Maybe Rant is built up to be this or that, much in the way it happened with someone like jesus or John Henry.
Most of the point of the narrative style using short interviews was to leave things a little open.
So if you're looking for closure and science, read H.G. Wells' The Time Machine, not this book.[/QUOTE]

Yeah that's very true about being very open-ended since it's a oral biography.
It's just hard for me to wrap my mind around the fact that we're not supposed to look too deeply into certain areas.
I'm still hoping for a future explanation in the other 2 books though. It would just make the story tighter.

i think the logic was explained when he was talking how maybe time/history were more like a book, instead of thinking of time as a sequential line. How it had already been completed and each point in time is just like a page in it. He was his own grandparent [i]because[/i] he went back and became his own grandparent.

[QUOTE=corellion;975844]but it's a stupid question that's covered in the book, so go and read the book again and stop attacking me. I'm going to sleep.[/QUOTE]

I don't know where you get off saying it's a stupid question. I know that I, along with my 2 friends who also read the book, all wondered the exact same thing that AmericanClone did.
I don't know why Palahniuk didn't do a better in explaining the cornerstone of his logic before he built much more off of it. It kinda makes the 3rd section of the book annoying to read knowing that the idea of Rant becoming his own male heritage was never validated.
So far no one has really been able to explain this error other than using a generalization or stretching something out to mask the problem.
Leaving a book open-ended because it's a trilogy is one thing, but leaving flaws in a book is a completely different thing.
And saying that "he was his own grandparent because he went back and became his own grandparent" sounds circular to me and still doesn't answer "how."
I was glad to see this question asked and hopefully someone has figured out some hidden explanation that actually addresses the issue. Or maybe Palahniuk was too caught up with his big "I got you!" surprise ending that he didn't care to explain it all out. He might have decided to use some vague, sweeping idea to address the problem and hoped that people wouldn't actually care, but that is sloppy writing. I've read all of Palahniuk's books and I've liked them all until now.

[QUOTE=wickerkat;975853]it's book one of a trilogy give it some time[/QUOTE]

Yesterday at the signing I asked Chuck why Waxman and Echo were missing from the list of contributors, and he said because they had succeeded in going back in time and eliminating their future presence. So if it is true of the trilogy this would only help to further explain it.

[QUOTE=notsocutie;976145]I don't know where you get off saying it's a stupid question. I know that I, along with my 2 friends who also read the book, all wondered the exact same thing that AmericanClone did.
I don't know why Palahniuk didn't better to explain the cornerstone of his logic before he built much more off of it. It kinda makes the 3rd section of the book annoying to read knowing that the idea of Rant becoming his own male heritage was never validated.
So far no one has really been able to explain this error other than using a generalization or stretching something out to mask the problem.
Leaving a book open-ended because it's a trilogy is one thing, but leaving flaws in a book is a completely different thing.
And saying that "he was his own grandparent because he went back and became his own grandparent" sounds circular to me and still doesn't answer "how."
I was glad to see this question asked and hopefully someone has figured out some hidden explanation that actually addresses the issue. Or maybe Palahniuk was too caught up with his big "I got you!" surprise ending that he didn't care to explain it all out. He might have decided to use some vague, sweeping idea to address the problem and hoped that people wouldn't actually care, but that is sloppy writing. I've read all of Palahniuk's books and I've liked them all until now.[/QUOTE]

notsocutie indeed

[QUOTE=notsocutie;976145]I don't know where you get off saying it's a stupid question. I know that I, along with my 2 friends who also read the book, all wondered the exact same thing that AmericanClone did.
I don't know why Palahniuk didn't do a better in explaining the cornerstone of his logic before he built much more off of it. It kinda makes the 3rd section of the book annoying to read knowing that the idea of Rant becoming his own male heritage was never validated.
So far no one has really been able to explain this error other than using a generalization or stretching something out to mask the problem.
Leaving a book open-ended because it's a trilogy is one thing, but leaving flaws in a book is a completely different thing.
And saying that "he was his own grandparent because he went back and became his own grandparent" sounds circular to me and still doesn't answer "how."
I was glad to see this question asked and hopefully someone has figured out some hidden explanation that actually addresses the issue. Or maybe Palahniuk was too caught up with his big "I got you!" surprise ending that he didn't care to explain it all out. He might have decided to use some vague, sweeping idea to address the problem and hoped that people wouldn't actually care, but that is sloppy writing. I've read all of Palahniuk's books and I've liked them all until now.[/QUOTE]

I don't see how that's so "circular," it's more "finite" I'd say. As everything in the future has already happened as well. So Green basically takes his chess piece from it's place and moves it back to his great-gramma's place and back and forth.

It's the same problem with any kind of time travel story, but you're right he could have at least spent a couple more pages trying to explain it like he did the 50+pages explaining Party Crashing. But oh well.

Anyways, is there ever any mention about being able to go forward in time after they've gone back?

[QUOTE=nathaniel parker;976215]I don't see how that's so "circular," it's more "finite" I'd say. As everything in the future has already happened as well. So Green basically takes his chess piece from it's place and moves it back to his great-gramma's place and back and forth.

It's the same problem with any kind of time travel story, but you're right he could have at least spent a couple more pages trying to explain it like he did the 50+pages explaining Party Crashing. But oh well.

Anyways, is there ever any mention about being able to go forward in time after they've gone back?[/QUOTE]

Yeah "notsocutie" it's not really circular as much as it's just the best explanation a person can give, unfortunately.
It definitely would have been nice if he spent as much time on the subject as he did with Party Crashing.

I don't think going forward in time after someone has gone back was ever mentioned. In the book Green and Chester had to live out where they ended up. That would be an interesting thing to add in the other 2 novels though, but would also make the plot even more confusing I would think.

I see people talking about stretches and long-shots, and maybe the rest of the trilogy will minimize the need to conjecture on a lot of issues, but you don't have to wait for it entirely. You could be like Shot Dunyan on page 309 and say "Shit. I don't know how flashbacks work. I couldn't tell you exactly how a lightbulb works, much less make you one from scratch. But I can use one. You burn out your brain with rabies. Go all theta-trance-y with driving. You hit something and wake up naked in history." You can accept this, which really is an out for Chuck, that some things just are, or you could keep looking. It's in the whole concept of looped time that Chuck has even confirmed in interviews. Neddy Nelson asks the questions, which really give us answers: on page 286, "Aren't we talking about big backward loops in time?"; on page 252, "All I'm saying is: What if time is not the fragile butterfly wing that science experts keep saying? What if time is more like a chain-link fence you can't hardly fuck up? I mean, even if you fucked it up, even ten hundred times - how would you ever know? Any present moment, any 'right now,' we get what we get." Chuck is throwing out the "logic" that usually applies to the general, two-dimensional concept of time travel. I too wondered what happened to Green's original great-grandfather, grandfather, and father, but then I looked at the predestination paradox. According to Wikipedia, "in physics, the Novikov self-consistency principle proposes that contradictory causal loops cannot form, but that consistent ones can. In a physical sense, a self-consistent causal loop of this kind is not actually a paradox because it produces a logically consistent result rather than a contradictory one. It is only perceived as a paradox because it goes against conventional expectations and assumptions about causality... Because of the possibility of influencing the past while time travelling, one way of explaining why history does not change is by saying that whatever has happened was meant to happen. A time traveller attempting to alter the past in this model, intentionally or not, would only be fulfilling his role in creating history as we know it, not changing it." Green Taylor Simms: on page 263, "In a world where billions believe their deity conceived a mortal child with a virgin human, it's stunning how little imagination most people display."; on page 265, "A third possibility does exist, although it's never been widely discussed. Aside from bifurcation and time travel via a freed consciousness, this third option also resolves the Grandfather Paradox and places the traveler in Liminal Time, suspended outside of the linear movement of time which human beings experience. Simply stated, Liminal Time has no beginning and no end. Nothing is subject to the natural processes of decay and replacement. In Liminal Time, nothing is born and nothing dies." It's all about the suspension of free will, that time, existence, really is already written, it's a book that you can lose your place in, but never escape. Even if you're a god, you're still facilitating a pre-determined purpose.

Heh, I was expecting a bit more discussion on the time travel logic after my last post... Did I just hit the bullseye or what?

I don't really know what else there is to discuss about the time travel stuff. Your post has pretty much everything I thought about it. We could keep digging into it to "see how the lightbulb works" but it really doesn't interest me [i]that[/i] much further.
also, Cocoa Crisp is the best baseball name EVER!

[QUOTE=Cocoa Crisp;977852]Heh, I was expecting a bit more discussion on the time travel logic after my last post... Did I just hit the bullseye or what?[/QUOTE]

It seemed to me that you just restated everything already said:

The characters' versions of the story may not be accurate therefore not logical, and you can see any of the characters' versions as the truth.
And that you can't escape the present by changing the past because of our "pre-determined purpose."

I've already presented arguments for those points though.
Although it may be just one character's version of the story, it is still a fictional story written by Chuck Palahniuk that shouldn't have and loose ends and general explanations. And also, if the present stayed the same because of the whole loping, non-linear, book-like time situation, then why do we see the present change with every decision made by a character in the past? Green screwing his grandparents to create a super him in the present obviously shows how one can change the past to vacillate the future. Or Waxman erasing himself from existence. Or Neddy going back and stopping the I-SEE-U Act. Or Shot stopping porting. It all shows how the past changes for the future.

[QUOTE=AmericanClone;977988]It seemed to me that you just restated everything already said:

The characters' versions of the story may not be accurate therefore not logical, and you can see any of the characters' versions as the truth.
And that you can't escape the present by changing the past because of our "pre-determined purpose."

I've already presented arguments for those points though.
Although it may be just one character's version of the story, it is still a fictional story written by Chuck Palahniuk that shouldn't have and loose ends and general explanations. And also, if the present stayed the same because of the whole loping, non-linear, book-like time situation, then why do we see the present change with every decision made by a character in the past? Green screwing his grandparents to create a super him in the present obviously shows how one can change the past to vacillate the future. Or Waxman erasing himself from existence. Or Neddy going back and stopping the I-SEE-U Act. Or Shot stopping porting. It all shows how the past changes for the future.[/QUOTE]

First of all, I never commented on the contradictions between different characters' points-of-view, and whether they're logical or not. I really only used Shot's and Green's perspectives on flashbacks as an example for the people who really don't care enough to dig deep into this, unlike us. And Neddy's to explain the less fragile concept of time. But my opinion is that the perspectives which dissuade you from believing the supernatural/extraordinary aspects of the story are simply tongue-in-cheek red herrings, not the true story. In many cases the contradictions are very obviously the characters just lying to protect their own interests, like Green in the end. I think the tone and focus of the book definitely lean toward affirming Rant's incredible exploits, almost concretely, and the contradictions just play devil's advocate. Secondly, yes, in the first post you did say "you can argue that he always was his own great-grandpa, grandpa, and dad," but you also said "it leads back to my question of how he was initially born to begin with." Maybe I restated the first part, but only to answer that question with the self-consistent casual loops. I gave you a scientific explanation no one else had for "he was his own grandparent because he went back and became his own grandparent." How is this general or loose? He was predestined in a time loop, period. I do, however, now see the gaps in my explanations between self-consistency and Liminal Time. So let me try again. The self-consistency principle applies to the two-dimensional concept of time and its travel, but mainly facilitates Green being Chester being Rant in this story. So time to us mere mortals really is like a pre-written book where you're unable to change anything - logically you can't create a contradictory casual loop. I had that part right, but my conclusion was, in fact, wrong. I had said, "Even if you're a god, you're still facilitating a predetermined purpose." But what I really didn't think about was how that goes against the entire idea of a god. Party Crashing allows you to escape two-dimensional time, "suspended outside of the linear movement of time which human beings experience," and enter Liminal Time. And Liminal Time gives you the abilities of a god, where you are not bound by predetermination. So if "nothing is subject to the natural processes of decay and replacement," as a god you can change history, you can edit that pre-written book. Except for what will be answered about Wax and Echo in the rest of the trilogy, I don't think Chuck left us too many loose ends that we couldn't tie up ourselves. I know it's not a neat little package, but I think everyone can agree that a steaming pile of exposition in the end, a la Vanilla Sky, would have been really cheap and it's kind of fun to analyze the different possibilities. It also extends the book's reach. The answers are there, we just have to exert ourselves a little bit to find them.

And to Nathaniel, as far as Cocoa Crisp being the "best baseball name EVER": My name is actually Carter Crisp and I just really love Cocoa Crispies, but it's sort of a double-meaning because I did pick up the nickname from a massive Red Sox fan. So thanks.

Paragraphs man, [i]paragraphs[/i]!

Hahaha, yeah... I've always drifted towards the stream of consciousness style, but I know, as a creative writing major I should probably work on the structure a bit.

[QUOTE=Cocoa Crisp;978387]First of all, I never commented on the contradictions between different characters' points-of-view, and whether they're logical or not. [/QUOTE]

It seemed to me you did when you discussed the other characters' p.o.v.'s and said that you can accept any of them as a solution. Since the characters' points of views were different from each other, I assumed this also meant contradicting.
Regardless though, I agree with you that the time traveling idea IS a factual part of the book and not just hearsay from one of the characters.

I really do understand what you're saying about the predestination of time and how it's like a book and all, (you did a good job explaining it) and i know Chuck writes about that in the book, but it just doesn't seem consistent with the story. As I've already pointed out, the characters change things about the future by entering the past, which means they changed the "pre-destined book."
So how would the idea of predestined loops apply to Rant becoming his own ancestors and not the other characters?
But even if that added up it still seems problematic to me.

Here's why i said the predestined future is a loose way of explaining how he became his own great-grandpa etc. If the future was predestined, wouldn't that simply mean that Rant's original male ancestors would end up screwing his female ancestors no matter what so that the future can become what it must? How in the world does the predestined time loop manage to explain how screwing your ancestors will eventually warp into you? The predestined time loop would have nothing to do with Rant becoming his own ancestors, just that his grandparents would eventually meet and have sex. But this paragraph is really secondary to the one above it because the book isn't consistent with pre-destination to begin with.

I like your ideas and I think that's what Chuck wanted us to get to, but I see problems with it.

[QUOTE=AmericanClone;975840]I see how he could have gone back to screw his great-grandmother, but logically it would never produce his grandma, it would produce someone completely different.[/QUOTE]

Doesn't that answer your own question right there? Weren't Simms and Rant completely different people?

They may have been the same person as far as any specific timeline goes, but you're right, because he banged his great-grandma, it greatly changed the course of who he would eventually become, hence the fact that Simms and Rant are totally different.

It's like if you had to get your arm amputated sometime in the future for some reason, and then after the amputation you came back to right now. You'd exist as both having both arms and as missing one. Two different physical beings that clearly look different (one with an arm, one without) just from different times and from different circumstances. Of course, producing a child with your own great-grandmother would change one's appearance a bit more drastically than just missing an arm, but you know what I mean.

[QUOTE=Edwyn;979663]Doesn't that answer your own question right there? Weren't Simms and Rant completely different people?

They may have been the same person as far as any specific timeline goes, but you're right, because he banged his great-grandma, it greatly changed the course of who he would eventually become, hence the fact that Simms and Rant are totally different.

It's like if you had to get your arm amputated sometime in the future for some reason, and then after the amputation you came back to right now. You'd exist as both having both arms and as missing one. Two different physical beings that clearly look different (one with an arm, one without) just from different times and from different circumstances. Of course, producing a child with your own great-grandmother would change one's appearance a bit more drastically than just missing an arm, but you know what I mean.[/QUOTE]

I like this simplified version. It doesn't make 100 % sense, but it's so easy to grasp that I don't even know why.

[QUOTE=bigshrimpn;979670]I like this simplified version. It doesn't make 100 % sense, but it's so easy to grasp that I don't even know why.[/QUOTE]

What about it doesn't make sense?

If whatsherface in the car wreck is 163 years old and still looks in her 20's doesn't that seem to indicate when you go back in time you don't age from then on? I saw it as that's how Simms was still young enough looking to Party crash with the kids.
But if that's so, then how did Rant/Chester grow old as he was raising his son/himself? He should have stayed the same age too.

Excellent point Nate. I think the difference is that Chester is not immortal and will not be until his parent/parents are killed off. I don't think you stop aging when you go back, I think you stop aging when your parent/parents are killed. When the PI that Rant hires (forget his name) is talking about Simms, he refers to him as having "Geriatric dementia" meaning he's old as fuck. He's also referred to several times as being a nutty or cooky old man. So.... my theory is that he didn't stop aging when he went back, he stopped aging when his mother died at the Thanksgiving deal, with him being around 100. The stoking allowed him to live longer. what you think?

I like that explanation, but if Simms didn't stop aging until 100, how in the heck was he able to go Party Crashing? I can't see them letting some 100 year old dude drive the car.

That's what I'm trying to figure out. Still very funny mental picture. An old ass man encouraging the driver to speed, rather than to "slow down sonny".

I'm kinda with Nathaniel on this one. I got the impression that they stopped aging once they go back in time.

The thing with Chester being older, I think, is that he's from a different time and on a different timeline than the others. Like, If you were to go forward in time right now, you wouldn't expect to find yourself in the future exactly as old as you are now. If you follow the timeline of the story, Chester never did go back in time. He was Rant as an older man in the logical timeline, but Rant changed that when he went back in time. Therefore, the two existed at the same time just on different levels.

Perhaps, though, since Rant went back in time, Chester will eventually fade away, or become the younger Rant once again, as Chuck explained in the book that once you change the past, everything kinda works itself out to correspond to that change.

[QUOTE=Edwyn;979943]I'm kinda with Nathaniel on this one. I got the impression that they stopped aging once they go back in time.

The thing with Chester being older, I think, is that he's from a different time and on a different timeline than the others. Like, If you were to go forward in time right now, you wouldn't expect to find yourself in the future exactly as old as you are now. If you follow the timeline of the story, Chester never did go back in time. He was Rant as an older man in the logical timeline, but Rant changed that when he went back in time. Therefore, the two existed at the same time just on different levels.

Perhaps, though, since Rant went back in time, Chester will eventually fade away, or become the younger Rant once again, as Chuck explained in the book that once you change the past, everything kinda works itself out to correspond to that change.[/QUOTE]

But what about Simms going back at 25 and being an old man by the time Rant moves to the city? Or even when Simms finds Rant in Middleton, he's supposedly an"older man".

Unless there's something in there about after they kill the parents to revert back to a specific age appearance-wise. I don't see what could explain it.

[QUOTE=karbunkle;980140]Unless there's something in there about after they kill the parents to revert back to a specific age appearance-wise. I don't see what could explain it.[/QUOTE]

It's because Simms went back and started stoking, yet, he was still aging, just alot slower because of th improved genetics. From what I can tell, one does not become immortal until HIS parents are deceased at apoint before HE is concieved. Therefore he kept aging until he was immortilized when the older Casey women started dying. My theory anyway. And I don't know how he is feeling these surges of power when he's screwing his lineage if he's a completetly different person that the eventual child of the lineage. If he's a completely person in a completely different reality, I don't know how he reaping the benefits of stoking. Something to chew on.

My take on it is that yes, history/reality once included a normal origin for Charles Casey, but this history/reality got changed when Charles went back in time and changed that to 'him' being the product of himself mating with his own grandmother, then mother, because in the Rant-universe reality/history/the time-line is mutable (all that is needed for this to be logically possible is for time to have two dimensions). The original Charles may have been different to the Charles/Green that was created when he changed reality, but once the change was made the old/original himself 'never' existed.

Going back further in time and doing the same thing with his great-great, and great grandmother just 'stoked'newer versions again.

And this is the new reality that seems to everyone in it, to be the way things have always happened.

The people who were originally the grandfather/father etc of the original Charles Casey, perhaps went on and did something else.