My theory on the love it/hate it nature of Pygmy...

hmmm, maybe. But that might be generalizing it too much. Aside from the communist/marxist/totalitarianism I thought more people disliked it for other reasons. If it were to be fresh and new its because it IS recycled. Theres nothing new under the sun and the whole communism/fear thing has been dorment for the past 20 years. Only now has it come back (N. Korea) as a mildly new more spoken thing. But putting all that aside, I still think Pygmy is about something more. It's just using totalitarianism as its story but not its meaning.

Also, round here at least, there are numerous idiots my age who love anythng and everything and queston nothing. "ohhh h my god pygmy was so cool! awesome! blah blah blah I do no thinking for myself". As young as I am Im not ignorant to that whole idea of the spread of totalitarianism.

I agree with spacemonkey. Personally, I'm too young for the Cold War (I was one when the USSR dissolved) but I think Pygmy was just using the totalitarianism as a vehicle to deliver the story. The United States is currently on a witch hunt for terrorists, and the book painted a picture of what the general populous believes goes on in that type of environment.

Someone on the forums said that it was supposed to show how puberty (coming of age, rather) is stronger than being brainwashed since you were four. I think that this is the real purpose of the book, and whoever said that stated my thoughts perfectly.

All in all, I didn't really like the book. I understand the point that was supposed to be gotten across, I just didn't enjoy it. But you will always have those fanboys that would worship anything with Chuck's name on it. I'm inclined to think that they are the ones that didn't grasp what was really going on in the book.

...

Drake out

'Love it or hate it' is a thought terminating cliché! (Specifically, false dichotomy)

Also, haven't red it yet...I'll let you know.

Yup, that was I.

nope, your not ignorant you just can't spell

And you don't use proper grammar/punctuation...

I didn't get 'cold war' so much as 'war on terror' from the book. I didn't live through the cold war exactly but I was born during the middle of it. 'Cold War', to me, was more about escalating arms races. Kind of a monetary warfare. "Pygmy" reminds me of the whole "orange, red, yellow alert levels, duct tape and plastic sheeting" crap that we have been going through for the last decade.

Loved it? No. Hated it? No. But I did enjoy it.

I am wondering about the timing of the book. Suppose "Pygmy" had been published 6 or 7 years ago. Would I feel different?

Yeah, but the whole indoctrination, anti-American, anti-capitalist thing, it's all straight outta Communist Russia/China/etc playbook. Propaganda will always play a major role in any conflict, but the sheer scale of the indoctrination (parades, military might, etc) is very pre-GWOT.

*Ahem* Speaking of typos...

http://chuckpalahniuk.net/forum/1000026/if-i-can-do-an-interview

The 'red scare' of the late 1910s- early 20s. People were blowing things up all over the U.S. For real! Bombing buildings and trying to letter bomb members of Congress. And nobody mentions this anymore.

i seriously think pygmy is just calling everyone out on how stupid they are.

as i said before stupidity vs. stupidity.

whether it be in high school peer pressure,

terrorism,

or religious differences...

we are all just idiots trying to reason with or just flat out wipe out other idiots.

you're probably right about the youngin's liking the book just for the sake of chuck's name being on it.

i just think it was a great leisure read regardless of the meaning. the way it was written and how it flowed was good enough for me to enjoy it. i wouldn't call it a masterpiece but it's not a piece of trash either.

and a lot of the comments might as well say: that's like soooo 1985.

are books supposed to be trendy now?

i guess that's why i will not pick up harry potter or a twilight book. it's just a fucking trend. is chuck supposed to fit in that category now, that's what his writing has turned into? is that what this website is all about? this is nothing but a fucking trend?

if so please let me know.

sassy

Hey now, Harry Potter may be trendy, but they are still fun and entertaining books to read. As for the glittery vampire horseshit, though, I couldn't agree with you more.

I thought Pygmy's message was that American culture is both our strongest weapon and the instigating factor in the war on terror. People of the world hate us because of what we have, yet can't resist wanting it for themselves. Or maybe I'm just talking out of my ass yet again.

With subtle credit to the book, I don't think the ideas of totalitarian vs terrorist ideology were very well distinguished. I think both kinds of images were conjured up in order to elicit certain feelings at certain times in the book. It's an interesting idea that perhaps younger readers would like this book, but in a vacuum, I'd probably make the opposite assertion.

I'm 31. I watched the fall of the USSR and the rise of Al Qaeda. My main take on the subject matter in this book is that it seems to me to lean more toward the totalitarian socialist ideology side of things than toward radical ultranationalist terror ideology. All in all, though, I think these ideas were just a tool for some exotic comedy and good one-liners, so I'd hate to dig too deep into it.

Considering political ideology as a facade for a romantic comedy story, I think that the more important aspect of whether you liked the book would be about either accepting the campiness of the politics or rejecting it. Me, I accepted it as a dramatic tool, but I can understand how some could see it as just too damned goofy to work.

i didn't say they weren't good books(harry potter,twilight) i just personally will not read them because i'd rather not associate and have to act all interested in what's going to happen next in the series. i knew two girls in one of my college classes who both had harry potter tattoos. i almost threw up at their enthusiasm.

and i decided maybe chuck's book have just turned into a trend that i have fallen into and i think i want to kick myself for it. but i guess it happens.

you can't hate on something that many people enjoy.

Sure you can!

i know so i do

Yeah, I'm calling shenanigans on this.

I didn't think there was even a "Red" to be scared of until 1918?
But I can see that having happened.

Really? Which part? Or all of it? It's been a while since I was in a history class, so I could be wrong.

EDIT-I was wrong. It wasn't just congressmen. Also included were the attorney General, Supreme Court Justice O. W. Holmes, J.P. Morgan and Rockefeller, along with 20-some others who were the targets of the failed letter bomb campaign.

Wall Street was bombed, killing almost 40 people.

Bombs went off in 8 cities almost at the same time. (2 in Philly)

BTW- The 'Red' in Red Scare is not limited to communism. It included a lot of groups (Galleannists, Anarchists, Socialists and others) Mostly it meant 'foreign'.

Right, there was a red scare at that time, of pretty much any kind of leftist or radical foreigner, ,but I'm pretty sure there wasn't a massive widespread bombing campaign perpetrated by the "reds". It sounds like something the government might claim at the time, to whip up the ol' paranoia. That's how they would go after groups like the IWW, for example, by tying them to some imaginary terror campaign.

Do you have a source for this?

Though, not gonna lie, history wouldn't have been that much worse for wear without Rockefeller.

8 Bombs went off around the country on June 2nd, 1919. Two of those in Philadelphia. The first one at a church. The second one at a house. A month or so later, a bomb went off on Wall Street. My sources would be any history book or news paper, any book on Sacco and Vanzetti, J.E.Hoover and so on. The last book I read on the subject was The Day Wall Street Exploded (Gage). And, as sympathetic as she was to the IWW, even she wouldn't suggest that the government was behind those bombings. Even the Marxist Dictionary credits the Galleanists with these bombings.

But I could be wrong and would like to know your sources on the subject.

Edit- I'm a little slow but I just realized that you accused me of lying because of the way something "sounds to you" in you (expert?) opinion.

It's sort of a stock reaction for me, usually. There are plenty of instances when people will talk about something that leftists supposedly did, only to find out that the truth of matter is completely different (I'm thinking of the Haymarket Riot in particular). And, frankly, since I haven't interacted with you much, I figured there was a good chance you had just read something online, or something like that. Glad to see that's not the case.

I'll have to look into those instances and get back to you. Though my initial impression from your first post was that it was more than eight bombings, though, thinking of it now, that would certainly be enough for the newspapers at the time to talk about a Red Scare. And it's not as though violent actions have been anathema to radicals all the time.

Sorry if I came off as insulting.

Bumping this, I just read the first two chapters...wow, this kinda sucks. It's like someone trying to write like the Palahniuk in Ironmanese. 20 pages in, and randomly some bully is raped in a Wal-Mart bathroom. Huh?

With all due respect to The Palahniuk, it puzzles me to think as I read it, "This is from the same mind as Fight Club?"

Bumping this, I just read the first nine words of that post. Wow, it kinda sucks. I mean, this guy just tells us he started reading the book and then never offers an opinion on it or anything? That's so weird.

Oh wait. There's more of the post. Maybe I should read more than the first little bit of something before judging it.

I'm want to agree, but I think it was worth the insult.

The idea of Pygmy isn't so much political. I doubt Chuck's background is sufficient enough for him to be giving pointers on what direction we should be taking when it comes to the public agenda - and THAT is what Pygmy seems to be about. Youth is so susceptible to fierce ideology without any particular reason. Just look at the Westboro Baptist Church kids. I have a very extensive opinion on that particular subject, but that's not the point here. You're not supposed to like Pygmy, as the first post says. (I'm too lazy to read any of the rest, and I'm too over-read from reading Rant and studying for exams to go through it) You're only supposed to sympathize with him. Your understanding of his way of thinking grows as the story develops. And although his words don't show it, his understanding of OUR way of thinking grows, too. Duh, right? At some point in the novel, his actions no longer coincide with the strong ideology he is constantly promoting in his dispatch, but he still continues to imply hate towards our culture. Thus you learn that he was never a reliable narrator, and none of what he ever said was actually as emotional as it seemed to us. He wasn't even reliable when it came to his own thoughts on a situation. The words he used were simply habitual, brought upon him by those who deny him his own cognition. But enough of what you guys are talking about, for some reason. Let's get back on topic.

BACK ON TOPIC

The romance in Pygmy is fantastic, and it's an essential part of the meaning behind most of Palahniuk's books. The raw human desire for social interaction is usually distorted by ideas that completely contradict these feelings, yet are brought upon the world by those who base their lives on this distortion. Palahniuk is very Freudian in this sense. Behind all of our actions is a hidden desire for something. All Pygmy, and most people, ever wanted was to be accepted into an environment that's consistent with what we needed. The problem with ideologies is they convince you that you can never have these things you need if you don't think a certain way. Pygmy is a beautiful coming of age story that accomplishes this message, and many others (like establishing perspective on our own values as culture). I just had one problem with it: That Spy Kids ending with the brother randomly coming out of nowhere with a cheesy line and a sudden ability to fight trained adults (I know Pygmy taught him some moves, but c'mon). Otherwise, this book was a nigh-masterpiece of Palahniuk's.

When I started the book, I was really turned off by the "Engrish" that Pygmy speaks in. I mean, Pygmy and the rest of his team are supposed to be the most gifted children their government can find. They've been educated and trained with every advantage that can be given. They are all like walking encyclopedias, and yet for some reason they can't be taught to speak fluent English??? It's not just stupid, it's borderline racist.

Now with that said, once I got over the obvious holes in the plot, the book was a lot of fun. One of those books you have to take with a grain of salt. Besides, the endless vibrator jokes were a hoot. Haha...

I am about 70 pages in and still cannot get past the writing style. Palahniuk's writing appears to be more about gimmicks than anything else at this point.

It is interesting to see an outsider or foreigner describe the typical things you see in school or middle America, but at the same time, if this person is supposed to be so advanced, as another poster stated, why would he talk like this?

It's like reading babelfish. At this point, I am considering just giving this book away as I simply do not care about a single character nor do I want to make a serious effort just to understand a simple sentence.

You'll be doing yourself a favor! GO outside and LIVE, dammit, LIIIIIVE!