Did someone censor the last entry? It seems to have disappeared. It wasn't mine so it is ok to demand satisfaction for journalistic freedom from the fascist overlords that would seek to silence us. I hereby formally lodge protest against this unconscionable action by whomever it was perpetrated!!
I have 'net service back again...and phew because it is Monday and the Dem convention is on. There must be enough digital bits I have to read to stretch from here to seattle. And bits are tiny. I don't want to make this a completely political blog of course, but I can't help but say: If you're a Democrat or a Liberal...PLEASE vote for Nader. Heheh.
I finished Survivor last night, thanks to the inability to sign online mostly. I havent read that much dead tree material in one sitting in some time. Its a pretty good book. I liked it better than Lullaby, which quite a few claim is Chuck's best. As always, the premise has that interesting plausibility of characters mixed with the implausibility of some of the circumstance. The Palahniuk "gimmicks" are in there (I don't use that word disparagingly; I enjoy the idiosyncratic quirkiness of a lot of his writing technique. At times though, I think "sheesh, I get it. Lay off the running word-gags.) and they add to the mix well. Some people say he is a one trick pony that does a really good trick. I disagree, somewhat. Granted, there is that distinct flavor that all his books have had, and the familiar themes of a hopeless and somewhat suicidal victim of tragicomic circumstance. There is certainly a "sameness" to all the books I have read so far. But then again, the same can be said for Vonnegut. Or....O. Henry, for pete's sake. There is also, however, a distinct "original and unique" feel to all his books. I take exception to someone who expects him to reinvent writing every time he takes up a pen. I think he offers more or less the same lens to look through for each book, sure. But the lens is pointed each time at something marvelously different from not only his other works, but from the works of others. I really don't see how *any* writer can avoid being formulaic to some degree. The thing that grabs me is the variables in the formula, not the formula itself.
As with most good books I read i am still processing exactly what it said to me without making any definite conclusions just yet. I have the story in my head now, and I enjoyed it on that superficial level. Now I am spending my (copious) time in the shower just letting it bounce around my head, thinking about what he was trying to say other than what he had the characters say. This is the fun part. I have a few opinions about it but they are half-formed and probably wrong. Clearly death and religion and determinism versus free will are among the main themes. The subjects I have figured out, but exactly what the message about them was I am still on the fence about.
I recommend it to anyone who can get past the "shock" stuff, anyway. I don't expect you to become a member of his fancult...er club. I do think you'll enjoy it, if you aren't already a fan. I should probably send it to you, Kim. I think you'd like it.
Alright that is enough for now. I might bury this entry with some links I come across and BlogThis, but don't let the political stuff fool you: I'm well rounded, dammit!
posted by M@ at 1:55 PM