|
I also don't feel as if the characters were really developed as well as those in other Palahniuk works. The usual Palahniuk twist was there, but it was more predictable and less shocking than those in, say, Choke or Lullaby. But it was a quick read and I couldn't put it down, so it wasn't a complete loss. I would probably rate this book 3.5 out of 5 stars. While good in its own right, I wouldn't really count it as one of Palahniuk's best works.
His books are remarkably quotable too. All of chuck's books are amazing. His writing draws you in and takes you on a very unique journey.
The uneducated. You could read the first half of SURVIVOR at an intersection while waiting for the light to change. Palahniuk describes his fiction practice in the following way: "I write in the way that people talk." "But who ARE these people, exactly." one is tempted to ask. Much of the book, in fact, could have been written over a series of coffee breaks or during a lazy weekend. Never mind that this passage seems to have been taken word-for-word from a book on eating etiquette.
Joseph Suglia If hell were a library, SURVIVOR would be burned on the eighth floor.Dr. There is nothing intelligent, compelling, or intense in SURVIVOR. Hardly a work of art, SURVIVOR is very much a McDonald's novel. You will learn in this book how to eat a lobster. Each chapter of SURVIVOR is so badly composed that it would be difficult to believe that the writer spent more than fifteen minutes manufacturing it. It could have been produced at random by a computer. You won't be gripped.
The book is EDGY, dude.Much like FIGHT CLUB, SURVIVOR espouses a mindless athleticism and jock-fascism. The scene in which Branson screams, "I WANT TO GO TO PRISON." (54), for instance, passes uncomfortably close to the film AN AMERICAN WEREWOLF IN LONDON; the reverse pagination was already practiced by Bret Easton Ellis in his GLAMORAMA, a novel by a writer who Palahniuk has spent his career imitating. But who cares. I deny that he is an "author" at all.
SURVIVOR is not "writing" in the strong sense of the word---it is, rather, recorded speech. Somebody, I think his name was "John Barth" or something, once wrote a book about that. Or something.Although he may claim that he is deliberately writing in a crude style, Chuck Palahniuk does not give the impression that he could write any BETTER, even if he wanted to. Palahniuk's jock-fascism is jockalicious.The writer spells out the book's meaning in a series of self-explanatory claims, each one of them a painfully stupid cliche. Generally speaking, it is better for writers of fiction to prefer intelligence to stupidity.
In its post-consumer stage, the book is then discarded and quickly forgotten, like the wrapper in which a McDonald's hamburger is contained. A review of SURVIVOR by Chuck PalahniukThere are those who consider Chuck Palahniuk to be a good author. You could read the second half on a Great America rollercoaster. Tender was traumatized to the point of no longer wanting to have sex when he witnessed a lethal childbirth. There is no trace of effort or revision in any of his books, and effort and revision -- in a word, reversibility - are the hallmarks of authorship.
SURVIVOR is an Insta-Book. There are others who consider him to be a bad author. Palahniuk, however, seems to have serious pretentions at artistry. His sentences bear an uncomfortable resemblance to lyrics by Van Halen or Bob Seger.Mr. Twelve year olds.
At least it could be said of Stephen King's work that it succeeds in fulfilling a function: that of horrifying and disgusting his readership (to his credit, there are a few successful short stories to his name). FIGHT CLUB did not merely imply, but states in the most obvious manner, that bare-knuckled fist-fighting makes effeminate men more virile/manly/masculine. He speaks; he does not write. So does CHOKE. King would never claim to be an artist, only a showman.
There's also the weakest kidnapping narrative in the history of literature. The few glimmers of originality in this book can be found in the work of other writers and film artists who preceded Palahniuk. Similarly, SURVIVOR proclaims that you are a better person if you gain more muscle. This kind of deadpan summary does not inspire much confidence in the writer's verbal skills.Works of popular culture should be considered in terms of their function. For instance: "You realize that our mistrust of the future makes it hard to give up the past" (150).
The crux of the novel, for instance, is the moment in which a character named Adam narrates the origin of his brother Tender's sexual neurosis. Both Tender Branson and Denny lose their unsightly fat, gain muscle, and thereby become "holy." To say that bar-brawling muscleheads are BETTER PEOPLE than the flabby or skinny is repulsive AND fascistic. With the greatest arrogance, Palahniuk vomits onto the page whatever comes to his mind. Never mind that the lobster-eating passage is completely unrelated to its immediate context and the subject matter of the book.Oh, yeah. Palahniuk's Adam describes the trauma in this way: "She screamed, and the baby died" (34).
The messiness of his "prose style" is astounding. Chuck Palahniuk seems to prefer the opposite.
if you have a dark sense of humor and a crude idea of society then this is the perfect book on a rainy afternoon. i made the mistake of reading this book first and it has set a bar that no other Palahniuk book can reach.
The satire used is incredibly original and would entertain anyone. The way in which this book takes you through one character's journey is hilarious and even though it was written nearly ten years ago, it is even more applicable today. I do not want to give away too much of this book but overall it is a quick read and I am sure enyone will enjoy it. To start off, this is the second of five Palahniuk books I have read and I would put this one tied at the top (with Rant). The book is somewhat of a fairy tale but the main story is as believable as anything.
|
