Chuck Palahniuk

[Pearl]

Chuck is really starting to bore me. I know he writes whacked out, crazy stuff, but there is only so much you can take. I loved Invisable Monsters because it was the first book of his that I read, then I read Fight Club, Loved it. Choke, Loved it. Survivor, disliked it. I think it's the fact that I read so many of his other books and that was the reason I disliked Survivor. It's like candy, a little is great, but if you have too much you get sick of it.

 

[Chixulub]

Chuck is really starting to bore me. I know he writes whacked out, crazy stuff, but there is only so much you can take. I loved Invisable Monsters because it was the first book of his that I read, then I read Fight Club, Loved it. Choke, Loved it. Survivor, disliked it. I think it's the fact that I read so many of his other books and that was the reason I disliked Survivor. It's like candy, a little is great, but if you have too much you get sick of it.

Funny, 'Survivor' is my favorite of his books. And 'Invisible Monsters' was a struggle to finish for me. I'd rank 'Invisible Monsters,' 'Diary' and 'Haunted' as his weakest books. 'Fight Club' is a strong debut, but 'Survivor' is where he really hit his rhythm. And 'Choke' and Lullaby.'

'Haunted,' to me, the overall narrative used to make it a 'novel of short stories' is problematic, though I like, on general principles, the idea of lampooning 'reality' TV shows and so on. And the poetry, it's weak. If it's even poetry, which I normally wouldn't critique because I don't read a lot of poetry, but there's more to it than just hitting the return key periodically.

The stories within, some of them are brilliant. Some of the ideas would support larger works, a novels, if developed.

But a lot of short stories I enjoy I could see being expanded to novel-scale. Overall though, I think 'Haunted' would have been better presented just as a set of short stories by Chuck Palahniuk. The conceit of having the stories being 'by' the characters doesn't work in large part because all the stories are written in Chuck's idiom.

I felt like John Irving just barely pulled off 'A Widow for One Year' in terms of having four 'writer' characters and giving you a taste of how each of them wrote, geting outside himself. With 'Huanted,' it's like no effort was even made beyond limiting the narrator's vocabulary to their life-experience, which is a long ways from trying to write a story 'in character' as another storyteller.

Of course it's not much of a writer's retreat (I know, it's not 'supposed to be').

Basically, I think Chuck is a solid writer when he does what he does best, which is transgressive and/or allegorical fiction spoofing American pop culture. That's what's so great about 'Survivor' is all the paradigms he inverts. I think that's what I liked about 'Choke' and 'Lullaby' so much, too.

I know Jay has knocked him for going to the horror genre, but I think 'Lullaby' is an excellent example of Chuck doing what he does best in, basically, a gothic. It's a funny book, but it also confronts the noisy culture of America, and in Streator you get a guy you can sympathize with and at the same time be pushed to think about the power of life and death and whether anyone can use it responsibly. Or whether anyone can use any power responsibly or if it's inevitably self-serving (when Oyster and Mona hijack the grimoire).

I do hope Chuck tries another direction. Vonnegut hasn't been much fun the past few books, basically because he's become a broken record of his earlier work.

But maybe I hope in vain. There's not that many artists who follow the Miles Davis/Pablo Picasso model of reinventing themselves radically time and again. It's not like Kafka had a huge range of ideas he explored, he just found a lot of clever ways to make the same points.

And if Chuck makes the kind of impact Kafka did, he'll have done something...

 

[jay]

Haunted Spoilers

**Haunted Spoilers**

It's like candy, a little is great, but if you have too much you get sick of it.

I agree, I am under the impression that Chuck has an audience of 15 year olds in mind when he generating his material.

Funny, 'Survivor' is my favorite of his books.

I’ll go with that too. I’d put _Choke_ up there too, but the writing came off a bit too sloppy, or ‘stylized’. No longer a young writer trying to get published, he was now *trying* to be a “writer”.
A, ack, “minimalist” or whatever.

[Chix and I, for some time, have discussed some of this ad nauseum but…]

The stories within, some of them are brilliant. Some of the ideas would support larger works, a novels, if developed.

I thought some had vaguely-clever ideas, none really interesting enough to support a short story let alone a novel though.

The conceit of having the stories being 'by' the characters doesn't work in large part because all the stories are written in Chuck's idiom.

I agree that a true challenge would have been to make these annoying people that show up at **writer’s** retreat to actually WRITE…but it seemed like, unless I missed something, the stories were more or less being _told_ by someone. People prompted to “tell me a story” or “get up on the stage”, but same-difference, they were all pretty much in the same ‘voice’. Little nuances to language rarely happened, “Don’t laugh, but…” worked (although was tiresome) to a certain degree. But that was the only time.
And then re-using past themes, like “block A”, totally disassembled any idea of individual people.
Then at times the story seemed to be told by someone else as I recall descriptions like, ‘she played with her fingernails’ and such.

I felt like John Irving just barely pulled off 'A Widow for One Year' in terms of having four 'writer' characters and giving you a taste of how each of them wrote, geting outside himself.

Not a fan of Irving I’d cite a William Faulkner, _As I Lay Dying_, as a prime example or a great writer using the multi-character narration device to tell a story.

Of course it's not much of a writer's retreat (I know, it's not 'supposed to be').

But we don’t know it wasn’t supposed to be. Nor do the people that attended it. Right on the first page if says (something like) ‘we were told to write stories, poems,’ etc.
The coincidence that 17 (?) people, none (basically) having any aspirations toward writing, all just looking to runaway from something, would all be involved in this. A lazy society

I know Jay has knocked him for going to the horror genre

Not so much. For going into it and not doing it well, if at all, is more my comment. I say if at all because I completely fail to see _any_ Horror or Gothic within _Haunted_.
Chuck’s a damn nice chap, but I’m lost on the inscriptions of “Happy Nightmares” he is using for this book. And the cover (which may be out of his control). And the title.
_Victims_ may have been a better title, and still somewhat catchy. Victims how? Victims of what?
And then when you realise that they are all just ‘victims of ourselves’ – which is also a huge downfall of the plot –Mrs Clarke reveals in one of her stories that her daughter was at this very same retreat and came back mutilated, just as the present characters are. She then drops the bomb, “I was a victim of myself”.
Now if the current crew (ship) of fools can’t come to terms with that blatant statement nor place two-and-two together and realise that they had never heard of the daughter (i.e. she was never “rescued” nor didn’t have her story made into a ‘movie, tv, book, theme park, whatever’) who was in the SAME, EXACT situation then what the bloody hell are they continuing with the farce for?
So for me to carry on with the plot, which I believe still had about 1/4th left, was very much a struggle.

j

 

[Chixulub]

**Haunted Spoilers**


Not a fan of Irving I’d cite a William Faulkner, _As I Lay Dying_, as a prime example or a great writer using the multi-character narration device to tell a story.

Okay, yeah, that's a prime example. It's a great example, in fact. It's one of the greatest novels of the 20th Century, and I think it would be a bit much to expect Chuck Palahniuk or John Irving or most other writers who are alive right now to match it.

Someone will, but for all the good writers out there, I don't see many likely candidates for the next 'Big Three.' I've seen guys who's second books are much better than their first: Joey Goebel, Jeffrey Eugenides, and for that matter, Chuck Palahniuk. And it took Faulkner four books or so to hit his stride, so if Chuck had kept on getting better at the rate that 'Fight Club' to 'Survivor' would imply, he would be a contender for that Faulkner-level of accomplishment.

Now if the current crew (ship) of fools can’t come to terms with that blatant statement nor place two-and-two together and realise that they had never heard of the daughter (i.e. she was never “rescued” nor didn’t have her story made into a ‘movie, tv, book, theme park, whatever’) who was in the SAME, EXACT situation then what the bloody hell are they continuing with the farce for?
j

That was part of my beef with it as well. A bit more 'Johnny Pye and the Foolkiller' than Villa Diodati. But I catch some 'reality TV' as second hand smoke, and I gathered that Chuck was poking fun at 'My Big Fat Obnoxious Fiance' and 'Who Wants to Marry a Millionaire' and so on.

And I do remember Spalding Gray talking about going to a writer's colony and being unable to write with such a complete lack of distraction and stress.

I thought some had vaguely-clever ideas, none really interesting enough to support a short story let alone a novel though.

I don't have my copy in front of me, but that story near the end, about the 'Emmigration,' I thought that could be made into a hilarious short novel. The idea of reincarnation as a refining process for human souls and that we could just all pull a global Jonestown and cheat the system, I liked that. But it would take a longer work to explore the dumbing down of the enlightenment.

For that matter, the idea of trying to contain people who have deadly diseases they're immune to, that has great potential in my mind. People as WMDs, kept in isolation until Uncle Sam decided we needed a REALLY special envoy to North Korea...

Stuff like Chef Assassin's blackmail letter to the knife company, that's probably better left as a short-story, funny though it is.

 

[jay]

I think it would be a bit much to expect Chuck Palahniuk or John Irving or most other writers who are alive right now to match it.

Sayeth he who put Palahniuk and Kafka in the same sentence!
But I know what you mean, no way can anyone match what Faulkner did, and did on various occasions, I was just citing it as a Prime Example of multi-character views being done.

And it took Faulkner four books or so to hit his stride,

I’d rank his first, _Soldiers’ Pay_ as stronger than most books that were written in the past 20 years. _Mosquitoes_ also good, and then BANG: off into brilliance with _Flags in the Dust_ (originally heavily edited and published as _Sartoris_) and then into a rare, rare, rare string of masterpieces with _The Sound and the Fury_.

I’m not sure we’ll ever see an Excellent One writer ever again, let alone a Big Three.

so if Chuck had kept on getting better at the rate that 'Fight Club' to 'Survivor' would imply, he would be a contender for that Faulkner-level of accomplishment.

Chuck never could write that well, and he wants to be a stylist too much. But to be fair to him, I doubt he has/had Faulkner-esque aspirations. Although I know he loves _The Great Gatsby_ I haven’t heard him mention ‘the classics’ too much.

and I gathered that Chuck was poking fun at 'My Big Fat Obnoxious Fiance' and 'Who Wants to Marry a Millionaire' and so on.

Maybe. But that’s where many satirists foul up; they don’t know when to stop. Chuck blew the latter half of a whole novel just to crack a joke or possibly parody something?
Something that not everyone will even get?
Priorities…

And for a guy that says he never watches tv it’s a bit stretching to think he’s nailing specific shows…although I imagine enough articles have been written on such garbage.

And I do remember Spalding Gray talking about going to a writer's colony and being unable to write with such a complete lack of distraction and stress.

Sure. It’s a theme played with by many. TC Boyle’s novel _East is East_, for one. But surely you don’t give these characters *any* credit that they *ever* had aspirations to write something? (aside from maybe the one that was documenting everything on paper at first)
The reason we sympathize with (or like) a Brando in “On the Waterfront”, someone that “coulda been somebody” is because he actually tried. These annoying little cretins just wanted to become product. A good joke, not a good 400 page story.

…that has great potential in my mind.

Sure. Anything has potential in the right hands. Personally I hate science fiction, but I am open to a good writer or creative thinker’s attempts (Philip K. Dick comes to mind)
Nothing is taboo, except bad writing and insulting readers.
Yes, the knife-Assassin thing was ok, but too long. If you have great point, make it and back out. Belaboring the point, or knife’s blade, dulls it.

I’m just unsure what Chuck is trying to address. Obvious parody is there, but this doesn’t make a strong novel or series of stories. Douglas Coupland may not always have a strong story to tell, but he does tell the story and insert his cultural references within. Chuck could learn a shitload from that.
But Chuck wants to be different. Which is all and well, he’s clearly selling well and clearly not addressing/writing for me anymore.

Being someone that never ‘got’ the “alternative” (alternative to what???). crowd I did see the underlying parody of ‘outdoing one another’, or whatever he was going for. Frankly I’ve never understood tattoos. Yes, ok, maybe for 2 days you are Unique, Special and Different. And then others start doing it, and eventually the likes of a Kelly Osboure does it, which at that stage makes _not_ having a tattoo ‘alternative’ And here you are permanently marked with what will just degrade into a smear. Way to go. Your grandchildren will be proud on Grammies Smear.

And then the ‘goths’ thinking they are something “different”. Sure. With 20 bucks I can go buy some black, ugly clothes and look the same. Hmmm. “different”
Soooooo, my point being, as I often thought while walking through Harvard Square and seeing the assorted groups of ‘I’m different, I’m unique…and I’m very hard to employ’ groups, the idea of real one-ups man ship, the idea of severing fingers or whatever, now _that_ is alternative.
But it was just played out wayyyyy too long. Yes, making points and making parody may be great in conversation, or dropped into an already solid plot, but a frame for a plot it does not make.

Me thinks,
j

 

[sanyuja]

After reading the posts here, I decided to read my first Chuck's book.

I decided to read Choke because that was the only book that was easily accessible to me. And to my disappointment, I didn't enjoy it that much. May be I am not used to satire, but I didn't like the book.

I liked Chuck's writing stlye. Bold, I must say. Some of the statements in the book made me close the book and think! Very few books have done that to me.

The characters have just one dimension - their limitations. There is no depth to the characters. The ending was a big disappointment!

Spoiler

I expcted Victor to die.

Somehow, I didn't enjoy reading this book. Maybe its just me.

 

[jay]

I liked Chuck's writing stlye. Bold, I must say. Some of the statements in the book made me close the book and think! Very few books have done that to me.
- The characters have just one dimension - their limitations. There is no depth to the characters. The ending was a big disappointment! - Somehow, I didn't enjoy reading this book. Maybe its just me.

Aside form *not* liking Chuck’s writing “style” (and the crime there is I believe he _tries_ to achieve such “style” as opposed to just writing and letting a style happen), I agree with you.
Since _Fight Club_ my Palahniuk comment has been “great ideas, horrible, horrible writer”.
With _Survivor_ I saw the same thing, but a move toward trying to achieve more in the way of working on his writing ability.
With _Choke_, his last readable book, it seemed to be moreso _trying_ to achieve a certain template. Maybe he has thoughts of having the term Palahniuk-esque become a, well, a term. And needless to say I am increasingly skeptical of those that continue to label him a “minimalist”.
All in all, if _Choke_ didn’t tickle your larynx I’d say you’d find none of Chuck’s other books (or characters) appealing in the least. Especially has I have little doubt that his newer material is written for 15-year olds.

Hopefully your next experiment will result in a more positive reading experience, but the current waters of Contemporary Fiction are pretty choppy. At best.

j

 

[sanyuja]

When I finished reading 'Choke', I decided I will not read any other Chuck's book. But after reading people's comments, I was thinking of reading 'Fight Club'. Not now, may be later. I need a break after 'Choke'

After reading your post, hmmmm... I am having second thoughts. Let me see. Thanks jay

- Sanyuja

 

[jay]

When I finished reading 'Choke', I decided I will not read any other Chuck's book. But after reading people's comments, I was thinking of reading 'Fight Club'. Not now, may be later. I need a break after 'Choke'
- After reading your post, hmmmm... I am having second thoughts. Let me see. Thanks jay

I don’t mean to be dissuasive. Not my intention. Not at all.
But I believe many of those that like Chuck’s earlier work rank _Choke_ pretty highly. And I think it was his best attempt at character; Denny (Danny?) being a favourite of many…maybe even CP himself (I think I recall him saying that…along with something like, ‘I don’t like any of the characters I write about’…)

_Fight Club_ I’d say may still be worth a read, but there’s not so much of a character development situation, which seemed to also turn you off of _Choke_, but some great ideas, many of which were incorporated and fine-tuned in the film version. And 2 or three ‘scenes’ which would have worked nicely in the flick.

But either way, yes, a space should be always given between reading other works by any writer.
Mayyyybe you’re up for some Paul Auster or…Raymond Carver.
Or some Amy Hempel whom Chuck has said, “is my god among writers”.

j

 

[sanyuja]

Yeah, I will take a break and then think about whether to read Chuck's books or not!

Or some Amy Hempel whom Chuck has said, “is my god among writers”.

If that is coming from Chuck, then I better try Amy Hempel. Thanks j.

 

[jay]

Yeah, I will take a break and then think about whether to read Chuck's books or not! - If that is coming from Chuck, then I better try Amy Hempel. Thanks j.

Yes, please do. She’s really amazing.
And you can clearly see what Chuck is somewhat _trying_ for, but that still doesn’t make it right. I can’t swing a baseball bat like Mickey Mantle, so I developed my own swing. Nor can I paint like van Gogh or achieve ‘connected’ moments with liver like Portnoy, so I don’t attempt to.

Anyway, yes.

Here, under “Story Links” you can access her short story titled “The Harvest”. Under “Article Links” is an essay Chuck wrote on Amy.

http://www.amyhempel.com/links.htm

j

 

[sanyuja]

Thanks for the link, jay.

What an opening line

The year I began to say vahz instead of vase, a man I barely knew nearly accidentally killed me.

 

[jay]

Thanks for the link, jay.- What an opening line

Yes.
Sticking with the baseball imagery: with damn near every story she swings at the first pitch (first line) and cracks a homerun.
j
(who will one day type up every first line of all her stories and add them to their respective page on that site…)

 

[Chixulub]

Yeah, I will take a break and then think about whether to read Chuck's books or not!

I agree with Jay that reading an author consecutively is risky. I burned out on Will Christopher Baer’s ‘Phineas Poe’ books by reading them back to back; though I read the ‘Snopes’ trilogy with awe and admiration. Which I guess means WCB is no Faulkner (Chixulub blows soda out his nose).

If that is coming from Chuck, then I better try Amy Hempel. Thanks j.

I wonder about Chuck’s endorsement of Amy as a literary savior. This is going to make me sound like I’m not a fan of Chuck, which I am, for the most part. What if Nine Inch Nails or Dave Matthews was plugging the Brad Mehldau Trio or Dave Holland like crazy?

I tend to think that only a few of Chuck’s fans are going to buy an Amy Hempel book on account of Chuck’s praise, though a short story writer can have worse liabilities than a front-list bestselling author plugging her. Of those who do, a substantial number will probably not like Hempel at all, as she is such a radically different sort of writer. Gary Peacock refused to share the stage at the Village Vanguard with Elvis Costello (or rather, I think he refused to let Costello play the part of bandleader and play bass for Costello’s pop numbers).

On the other hand, Chuck is doing, in a way, what Hempel does, which is to promote other writers.

Aside form *not* liking Chuck’s writing “style” (and the crime there is I believe he _tries_ to achieve such “style” as opposed to just writing and letting a style happen), I agree with you.
Since _Fight Club_ my Palahniuk comment has been “great ideas, horrible, horrible writer”.

I think this gets into the subjective area of whether you find his style transparent and conversational or contrived and annoying. I like it in the books of his I like.

And needless to say I am increasingly skeptical of those that continue to label him a “minimalist”.

Even Hempel is skeptical of the term applied to herself. Or to anyone, as it’s been rendered meaningless by broad usage.

All in all, if _Choke_ didn’t tickle your larynx I’d say you’d find none of Chuck’s other books (or characters) appealing in the least. Especially has I have little doubt that his newer material is written for 15-year olds.

I don’t even think the problems with ‘Haunted’ are age specific. He seems to me to be the victim of his own success, cranking out books faster than he can crank out his best work, and getting soft edits because since ‘Choke’ he’s made the bestseller lists. To me the real question is, will ‘Haunted’ fall off the list faster than his previous hits? If so, maybe he’ll start to look at why. Maybe the next CP book will be head and shoulders above anything he’s done so far.

Hopefully your next experiment will result in a more positive reading experience, but the current waters of Contemporary Fiction are pretty choppy. At best.
j

I think good books are being published, but the majors in the publishing industry are making the same mistakes record labels have made. They’re trying to create an industry in which there are only a few front-list writers, a few classics on back-list for the English classes, and the rest can go to hell. The catch is with self publishing becoming more credible and easier to do profitably, and more indie publishers showing up all the time, I don’t think the big guys can call as many shots as they think. In the past five years, the new titles coming out in a year has gone from 119,000 (try reading all that), to 195,000, even though sales have gone from $23.9 billion to $26.4 billion, less than spectacular growth.

So contemporary fiction, there’s good stuff out there, but you’ve got to root around for it. It's a much bigger haystack. And it’s entirely possible that the next great read you have will be a POD or self published book. Unless you cloister yourself to backlisted classics…

 

[sanyuja]

I agree with Jay that reading an author consecutively is risky.

I might not mind reading some other author consecutively, but Chuck? No! After the heavy reading, I badly need a break.

On the other hand, Chuck is doing, in a way, what Hempel does, which is to promote other writers.

Well, I would try Amy Hempel whether or not Chuck promotes her. Chuck's praise for her is another reason for me to try her books.

I think this gets into the subjective area of whether you find his style transparent and conversational or contrived and annoying. I like it in the books of his I like.

Well.... I liked his writing style a lot. I had a problem with the story itslef and the darkness in it. I like the statements he makes and his style. So, after sometime, I might think about picking up one his books.

 

[jay]

I agree with Jay that reading an author consecutively is risky. I burned out on Will Christopher Baer’s ‘Phineas Poe’ books by reading them back to back; though I read the ‘Snopes’ trilogy with awe and admiration.

Yes, it all depends on the mood, I guess. Someone like Faulkner I have also read back-to-back books and had no problem enjoying them. I don’t know if I was in the right frame of mind or Faulkner just lends himself to that kind of reading. With some other writers I even get a little burnt out reading a short story collection, which, in fairness to them, is not how they are really written to be read; many collections spanning at least a few years worth of work.

I wonder about Chuck’s endorsement of Amy as a literary savior. This is going to make me sound like I’m not a fan of Chuck, which I am, for the most part. What if Nine Inch Nails or Dave Matthews was plugging the Brad Mehldau Trio or Dave Holland like crazy?

Sometimes that stuff can be peculiar. Absolutely gawd-awful “musicians” like a Michael Anthony [Van Halen] (whose bass solos consist of hitting open string and playing with the volumes knobs) has repeatedly mention jazz-ish legends such as Stanley Clarke and Jaco Pastorius in interviews. Which boggles the mind. Flea from the Red Hot Chili Peppers cites John Coltrane as a hero. The dreaded Stephen King often mentions some of The Established Literary Gods also.
Which I guess makes some sense. The greats are the great for a reason, irrespective of what career path the vast amount of admirers go down. Although as I kind of hinted with Chuck, the worship at the Temple of Hempel (groans) is all and good, but trying to emulate is a bit too much.

I tend to think that only a few of Chuck’s fans are going to buy an Amy Hempel book on account of Chuck’s praise,

I do disagree with you there. To a certain degree. I think we’ve both seen on The Cult a fairly receptive crowd looking into Hempel due to not only Chuck’s praise, but other ‘cultists’’. Just as Clevenger’s sales undoubtedly increased once Chuck said (something like) ‘it’s the best book I’ve read in 10 years’.
I recently finished a book of conversations between artist/writers Will Eisner and Frank Miller, they were talking about the future and Miller said that he was surprised to hear just how much of an impact it had with him just briefly mentioning an artist/writer/comic book in an interview.
I for one continually take notes and my desk here has variety of Post-It notes with ‘things to look into’- and looking back I can probably link damn near everything I like to association-via. Music, books, art.
I’d be curious to see how many look into Mary Robison’s book(s) when reading such high praise from an Amy Hempel & knowing she uses it in her class.
http://www.amyhempel.com/why_did_i_ever.htm

But I do agree with you that not everyone will get into a Hempel, and the flip side of that is others will “love” it just because Chuck “loves” it.

But all in all, while I wouldn’t say ‘Chuck kept Amy in print’, I *do* think he’s helped immensely. Just as, hopefully, some Sedaris fans will look further into her work, as he included her in his edited-by anthology.
And Hempel, sadly, needs all the help she can get, especially after such atrocious non-marketing of _The Dog of the Marriage_.

Even Hempel is skeptical of the term applied to herself. Or to anyone, as it’s been rendered meaningless by broad usage.

She hates it. Decades later I think she still flinches and nearly rolls her eyes at it. Mary Robison was never fond of it either. Hempel prefers “miniaturist” and Robison “subtractionalist”.
To me a label is a label. Kind of pointless (Kenny G is “jazz”) but kind of needed.

I don’t even think the problems with ‘Haunted’ are age specific.

Well, maybe I’ve just never been into the fraternity style of thinking but to me the ‘gross-out joke’ is that of a 15-year olds’.

He seems to me to be the victim of his own success, cranking out books faster than he can crank out his best work, and getting soft edits because since ‘Choke’ he’s made the bestseller lists.

No doubt, that and _my_ private theory that his very young fan base has affected his thinking to a serious degree.

To me the real question is, will ‘Haunted’ fall off the list faster than his previous hits? If so, maybe he’ll start to look at why.

Tough to say, I’d guess at his level he ships to stores already at a number that gets him onto the Best Seller list (just as say a Sting or a U2 album is *already* a “Platinum record” before anyone even buys it; 1 million (or whatever) copies are already “bought” by the stores around the world), and I’m never sure how much reviewers are actually followed (nor do I know what they are saying about _Haunted_), so yeah, interesting…not that I know how long the others stayed on the list…

Maybe the next CP book will be head and shoulders above anything he’s done so far.

I am curious, now that he’s got the ‘gothic trilogy’ out of his system. Hopefully he can ‘pass’ the ‘Palahniuk-esque’ “style” too. Maybe he’ll remember that he’s said _The Great Gatsby_ is his favourite book and he’ll nick some ideas from his personal Zelda and do something different.
Needless to say I’ve never been one to be called “optimistic” though…

The catch is with self publishing becoming more credible and easier to do profitably, and more indie publishers showing up all the time, I don’t think the big guys can call as many shots as they think.

I agree to a certain extent. What the big guys have is the promotional aspect. The little guys need to scream and shout and get the word across. Which _is_ why I think Chuck has helped Amy to an extreme.
Thankfully the internet has really helped out in this area. Even though most still get all sticky for wank crap like S. King and Harry Punter.

So contemporary fiction, there’s good stuff out there, but you’ve got to root around for it.

No doubt. Gawd knows I’m always trying. I pick up the stuff that is being well received and sometimes winning awards and such, but by the acre I am not only disappointed but appalled.

j

 

[Geenh]

Just a quickie... I just bought "haunted".

 

[jay]

Just a quickie... I just bought "haunted".

This thread has a 1000 word per post minimum!
Jus’ kidding.
Enjoy it & drop your thoughts herein when you’re done.
j

 

[KBomb_reads]

Contrary to popular belief at my art school, and most definitely this thread, I don't think Chuck is a well thought out man. I feel like he starts out with really wonderful concepts, and writes exceptionally well, but when he gets, oh say, about 3 quarters of the way into the book it seems as though he desperately wants to finish the story. The endings are most always hastily slopped out and too far fetched for my taste (but most certainly for others). I've read Diary, Choke, and Survivor. I have all of his books except Haunted and Fight Club.
Especially in Diary did his point seem to vanish near the end. The artistic background in most of his books is certainly intriguing and most authentic. But I just can't get into the endinds.
I'll have you know, before the scoffs and general disapproval, that for some unknown reason I am really disappointed that I can't get into him. (Which leaves me with an empty feeling in my heart whenever he has a new book on the stands.)

 

[bobbyburns]

maybe he should go to concentration camp.