I know, I know, literature is a matter of taste. But I have never even begun to understand the general adulation of Chuck Palahniuk, and I had mentally filed that fact in the large folder labeled “Things People Seem to Enjoy that I Can’t Stand,” at least until I read this review in a recent New York Times Book Review. Suddenly, I feel a tiny bit less alienated.
NB: I was going to link to Palahniuk’s home page rather than Wikipedia above, but the first thing I saw on it was an image so ugly and misogynistic that I can’t do that in good conscience. But what did I expect from a guy who brags about how many people have fainted in disgust at his public readings?
Here’s a 100% endorsement for stripping any laurels that have attached to Palahniuk, King Crichton (Laurels of Pulp? King is
entertaining & surprisingly insightful on crap culture’s
hidden reserves;Crichton dreck). Alas I’ve flipped Diebold’s chadless ears but not Sebold. Would Rudolph Wurlitzer have made Twain’s grade? Didja see Oregonian review of his first book since ‘84? You’d know Wurlitzer 3 cult paperbacks from late 60’s early 70’s;
NOG, FLATS & QUAKE and now
from the new book’s reveiws I recognize the films he’s written but didn’t know he wrote. Oregonian reviewer (or editor’s cuts) referenced the cultic troika by name only, not substance. Here’s the LAT with more sense datum & context:
http://www.latimes.com/features/printedition/books/la-bk-ulin27apr27,1,5185722.story
Laylo
July 9th, 2008