Chuck in this month's The Advocate

I think you mean this article...

http://www.advocate.com/issue_story.asp?id=53581&page=1

Incidently, the site also mentions that instead of Kim Cattrall, they originally had Chuck slated to do the cover, but, according to the mag's editor, he "backed out of our photo shoot at the last minute."

(Thinking about it, the fact that chuck decided not to do the photo shoot and backed out of his support for the article might be the reason). 

But i thought it was a decent article all the same, although a bit terse.  It seemed pretty honest and open, and since we do not know the full interview or line of questioning that was involved, we are not in a place to make any comments as to chuck's decision to stop supporting it...

From the article, the two final paragraphs:

The day after Palahniuk and I spoke by phone, for a follow-up interview, I contacted the site webmaster to figure out who crafted his answer to the Q&A. Hours later, Palahniuk pulled out of the Advocate photo shoot and called to say he was no longer cooperating with this article. My line of questioning had somehow triggered his sense of betrayal, but I was baffled and shocked. That morning, before the wave of panicked phone calls, I had received a package from him, crammed with two books we had discussed, a Whitman’s candy sampler, gag gifts, and a fake severed finger. Oh, and heaps of confetti. (“He really is gay,” said a friend.) Alongside, he’d written a touching letter. “Please find joy in everything you do,” he wrote. “I’ll shut up now.” Palahniuk often sends packages like this to his fans, but after years of working as a journalist -- and Palahniuk is one himself -- I’ve never received such a gift, and I mention this not to reveal his contradictions or strategies of coercion. Palahniuk says he is “the animal that eats its own young,” because he says he could not care less about Fight Club or any of his novels that have already been published. But he clearly does care, and deeply, about the perimeter of his privacy and the ability to turn off the lights when he wants to.

Palahniuk thinks a lot about the “liminal” -- those threshold states of transition, the “experiences between things,” he calls them. Like the Cacophony Society releasing windup toys in a silent crypt just to hear them whir. Or 600 men waiting to make their smear on history. Or a boy waiting for the ax to be sharp enough. Palahniuk is not in the closet. The whole question misses the point. But a part of him seems to recognize the utility of shadows, the function of mystery. He does not want to be known. At one point in our conversation Palahniuk asked, only half rhetorically, “How do you trick people into loving you? Are you smart? Are you funny?” This is a genuine question for him, as if connection were a series of traps. So he stays a moving target, cultivating transition and keeping slightly out of view. And if that disappoints his readers, “What are they going to do, jump to Alice Sebold at this point? To Amy Tan?” Palahniuk says to me. “God bless them. At this point they are reading my books because they like them, not because they like me.”