Sign in with Facebook
Greg's Reviews > Tell-All
Tell-All
by Chuck Palahniuk
by Chuck Palahniuk
This guy wrote a review of this book that is wrong.
This is not a good novel. I don't even know where to start on it.
I imagine this conversation happening between CP and his editor:
CP: Did you get my new novel?
ED: Novel? I got your short story.
CP: Oh, you kidder. Seriously, what do you think?
ED: Chuck, you can't release this as a novel. It's 150 pages, but the plot only takes up about 15 of those pages. This is a short story.
CP: My fans are retards though, they will think it's edgy. I can do anything!!!!
ED: Your probably right. I've got an idea why don't you namedrop another 30 pages of semi-obscure golden age Hollywood stars into the text. I think we can work with it then.
CP: Consider it done, my man!
For about the first 105 pages of the book there is nothing that happens that is really necessary to the plot. For a good portion of the pages after that there is nothing necessary to the plot. And actually the plot isn't really all that different from Diary.
As a short story this would have been vaguely entertaining with a pretty transparent ironic twist.
Which brings me to the name dropping. It is pointless. Somewhere along the line CP thought it would be cute to throw in excessive extraneous garbage into his books. It's a weird verbal tick of sorts. And it makes his books seem weirder than they really are. Actually they are sort of a crutch that lets him automatically create the obsessive characters he is known for without having to do much work. Which is good for him, since he chugs out a book a year. In Fight Club it was the "I am Jacks (x)", which was fine. In Survivor it was the endless cleaning tips, which were quirky and worked well in the novel, but I think became the crutch at this point. In Diary it was the endless cribbings from Grey's Anatomy. Here it is the nonstop name dropping (and putting those names in BOLD), as if he were just running down a list off of Wikipedia for 1940's and 50's stars.
But isn't this a seething critique of celebrity culture and our obession with the gossip rags? No. Unless you are 12 and haven't realized that the whole celebrity thing is vulturistic, then there is nothing really going on here. If anything it is just adding even more to the cult of celebrity. Ironically gushing over celebrities is still gushing.
All of this is fine to say, but really the big problem with the book is that it is BORING! It is tedious and BORING! BORING, as in nothing really happens. BORING, as in I enjoyed reading the nutritional information off of the bag of pretzels I ate at lunch today more than reading anything in this book. BORING, as in it wasn't even bad enough to warrant one star it was just this BORING, BLAH, MEDIOCRE thing of BLANDNESS; sort of like most of the celebrities out there today.
This is not a good novel. I don't even know where to start on it.
I imagine this conversation happening between CP and his editor:
CP: Did you get my new novel?
ED: Novel? I got your short story.
CP: Oh, you kidder. Seriously, what do you think?
ED: Chuck, you can't release this as a novel. It's 150 pages, but the plot only takes up about 15 of those pages. This is a short story.
CP: My fans are retards though, they will think it's edgy. I can do anything!!!!
ED: Your probably right. I've got an idea why don't you namedrop another 30 pages of semi-obscure golden age Hollywood stars into the text. I think we can work with it then.
CP: Consider it done, my man!
For about the first 105 pages of the book there is nothing that happens that is really necessary to the plot. For a good portion of the pages after that there is nothing necessary to the plot. And actually the plot isn't really all that different from Diary.
As a short story this would have been vaguely entertaining with a pretty transparent ironic twist.
Which brings me to the name dropping. It is pointless. Somewhere along the line CP thought it would be cute to throw in excessive extraneous garbage into his books. It's a weird verbal tick of sorts. And it makes his books seem weirder than they really are. Actually they are sort of a crutch that lets him automatically create the obsessive characters he is known for without having to do much work. Which is good for him, since he chugs out a book a year. In Fight Club it was the "I am Jacks (x)", which was fine. In Survivor it was the endless cleaning tips, which were quirky and worked well in the novel, but I think became the crutch at this point. In Diary it was the endless cribbings from Grey's Anatomy. Here it is the nonstop name dropping (and putting those names in BOLD), as if he were just running down a list off of Wikipedia for 1940's and 50's stars.
But isn't this a seething critique of celebrity culture and our obession with the gossip rags? No. Unless you are 12 and haven't realized that the whole celebrity thing is vulturistic, then there is nothing really going on here. If anything it is just adding even more to the cult of celebrity. Ironically gushing over celebrities is still gushing.
All of this is fine to say, but really the big problem with the book is that it is BORING! It is tedious and BORING! BORING, as in nothing really happens. BORING, as in I enjoyed reading the nutritional information off of the bag of pretzels I ate at lunch today more than reading anything in this book. BORING, as in it wasn't even bad enough to warrant one star it was just this BORING, BLAH, MEDIOCRE thing of BLANDNESS; sort of like most of the celebrities out there today.
Sign into Goodreads to see if any of your friends have read Tell-All.
sign in »
Reading Progress
| 06/23/2010 | page 90 |
|
50.0% | "Ugh. This is awful so far." |
| 06/23/2010 | page 144 |
|
80.0% | "35 pages to go, I think a plot is starting to develop!" 5 comments |
| 06/23/2010 | page 165 |
|
92.0% | "14 pages left. I still have a glimmer of hope that there might be something good in this book." 4 comments |
Comments (showing 1-50 of 92) (92 new)
message 1:
by
karen
(new)
Jun 24, 2010 07:37pm
you had pretzels and you didn't share???
reply
|
flag
*
karen wrote: "you had pretzels and you didn't share???"I didn't know you wanted pretzels. It was a litle bag, and I finished them out on the stoop.
That sounds healthier and probably tastier. The pretzels weren't the fancy ones from the farmers market, just plain old Utz.
BORING, as in I enjoyed reading the nutritional information off of the bag of pretzels I ate at lunch today more than reading anything in this bookWow, great antiblurb.
I'd like to see Palahniuk blurb his own book with "I can do anything!!!!!!" It'd probably garner praise for being a self-aware and biting critique of the shallowness of pop culture.
You're right. I wish Palahniuk were a total asshole but he seemed like a decent and nice guy who captured the dumbest hipster fan base literate enough to make it through a book.
From what I can tell (from a distance) he's just fallen into the trap of repeating the same gags over and over, tweaking the trivial details in order to pump out a new "novel."
This one really feels like that. I hadn't read anything of his since Lullaby, I probably wasn't missing much.
I've heard though that Sam Harris is going to be pulling the same gags as Palahniuk in his new book.
I liked Choke well enough. Haven't really read anything of his since then. Oh wait, I read one of the newer ones. I can't even remember which one. It was that forgettable.
Greg wrote: "I've heard though that Sam Harris is going to be pulling the same gags as Palahniuk in his new book."Yeah, but with twice the Zen-like focus.
Of course I'm psyched about the new Harris book. I'm glad it's decidedly not a repeat of his other two.
Chuck says something about how when he writes a book he picks one topic and finds a shit load of irrelevant information on it to put in the book. perhaps he said it in a different way now that I think about it.
Two stars seems generous, but I'll probably forget about this review after I get distracted by something shiny in a moment.
CP is one of those authors whose popularity makes me hate him, because his fans' adoration borders on zealotry, never mind the varying and sometimes abysmal quality of his books*. Like Joss Whedon: god, shut up about stupid Dollhouse and Dr. Horrible, idiots.*I did read and enjoy Fight Club, Survivor, Lullaby, and most of Diary. I read and could not stand Haunted, Choke, Pygmy, and all the parts of Diary that were about bleeding earlobes and torn nipples. So I'm not a blind hater.
I really liked Fight Club and Survivor but then I've had very mixed reactions to the rest of his books that I've read. Some I've liked but not loved and some left me really indifferent. Esteban, I would have given this one star but there was nothing awful enough to give it one star. It was too bland for being terrible.
I liked a lot of his books, but I also read them all fairly quickly. And if I am impressed with an author, I deal with a lot until that wears out. Knowing this I probably won't be going back to him now that he isn't shiny anymore. But I do still really love haunted, just because he wasn't even really trying to write a book.
CP: My fans are retards though, they will think it's edgy. I can do anything!!!!Also, my fans don't read any other books, so it's not like they care!!!
I am reminded of my college days. I was an RA, and one of my weirder and more socially awkward residents spotted me reading, I think, Survivor. Subsequently, every time I saw him for the next TWO YEARS, all he wanted to talk about was either A) Chuck P.'s most recent book, or B) Chuck P.'s forthcoming book. Every time he saw me reading a book that was not by Palahniuk, he would look at the cover, get this disappointed look on his face, and ask me if I knew anything about A or B.
This may have contributed to my dislike of the author. Coupled with the swift decline in his work.
poor chuck palahniuk. he is so nice, and he really cares about his fans, and he has such good ideas for books, but the man can't really write.and haunted is glow-in-the-dark!! i want to like him!
Don Delillo likes Chuck's writing...From the CP website:
Don Delillo:
One of Chuck's most famous literary fans, DeLillo's even "expressed his gratitude" to Chuck by emailing Dennis and asking him (politely, in so many words), why the f*ck his books weren't listed as something Chuck's fans might enjoy. Another early forerunner of the "dark/truthful future" genre, start with Americana, and then proceed with glee through the rest.
http://chuckpalahniuk.net/recommended...I'm not sure who Dennis is, I think he might be one of Chuck's minions.
Here is the full list of "Palahniukian" authors. My favorite is Camus. I always thought of him as especially Palahniukian in his treatment of existential themes.
http://chuckpalahniuk.net/recommended...
How am I a liar? Maybe Don Delillo was having one of his moments when he wrote that, sort of like whatever moment he was in when he started talking about all the places bathrooms can be in a store while he and I waited for the elevator. He's a little weird.
yeah, you are free with your oranges, at least.i didn't eat mine yet.
it is a souvenir of that time you were nice to me.
now I agree that nick hornby does what palahniuk claims he is doing better, but given that no one who reads palahniuk can tell I feel like most people would be severely disappointed if they asked for an author like chuck and you handed them long way down. ellis on the other hand basically is palahniuk, although he might write slightly better.
Greg, I've seen your review pop up on my update feeds as a couple of friends have voted for it. I'm curious why you singled out the review you did as "wrong." It certainly isn't the only favorable review of Tell-All on the site. I also wrote one. Why not include me and everyone else in your list of people who are "wrong" about the book?
Misha I could be wrong but I don't think greg would say liking this book is wrong. I mean I commonly have opposite opinions than him and that goes fine. I think he problem is that in the review he singled out the guy is saying things that are just clearly untrue. I mean if you are going to gush over tucker max and you say he is the most talented writer you ever read you are wrong, if you say that he is an ass that makes you laugh you have taken a defendable position.
Misha, I have no problem with someone liking this book. My goodreads friend Caris wrote a review that wasn't glowing but that explained why he liked the book a whole lot more than me and I didn't have the same experience with him, but I don't think he is wrong. But the guy I singled out is wrong. He's pretty much talking out his ass and all of his gushing about the book is pretentious and, well, wrong.
One, the novel isn't gothic. Maybe there are a couple of gothic elements, but name dropping Dracula and Frankenstein doesn't automatically put you in the gothic genre (and why would it?). Besides, the sheer quantity of things name dropped in this book make pointing to anyone of them and saying that this thing (x) makes this book related to (x) impossible.
Two, this doesn't mean anything: "Next? The book quickly builds into a photoluminescent cartoon: a Coyote-Roadrunner cartoon by way of Tex Avery and tops out with a gentle twist worthy of Alfred Hitchcock Presents or early-period M. Night Shyamalan." This is gibberish. It sounds kind of nifty but it doesn't mean anything outside of the reviewers head.
Three, when he says this: "But bitching that Palahniuk namedrops obscure Golden Age actors and actresses who have no direct relationship to the overall story is ridiculous.
If it bugs you so much, we live in the Internet age: put down the book, go to IMDB.Com and type the name into the search engine. Or spend a weekend watching Turner Classic Movies and watch the credits roll on three or four films: the past is as present and available to you as never before."
Here the author of the review is once again being pretentious and trying to elevate himself above the rabble by pointing out that he is the type that watches old films and thus is 'in' on the references. I know who 90 percent or more of the people name dropped were. I'm well aware of who Lillian Hellman is, her feud with Mary McCarthy, and that their feud is what caused the quote on the back of the book. I'm fully aware of these things and I can say that his name dropping is a cheap literary gimmick. It adds nothing to the story.
Finally, there is nothing in this review that says anything that I could say is correct. That is why I singled out this review. Why I didn't single out any other reviews is simply because I didn't read any others past that one.
Greg wrote: "Two, this doesn't mean anything: "Next? The book quickly builds into a photoluminescent cartoon: a Coyote-Roadrunner cartoon by way of Tex Avery and tops out with a gentle twist worthy of Alfred Hitchcock Presents or early-period M. Night Shyamalan." This is gibberish. It sounds kind of nifty but it doesn't mean anything outside of the reviewers head. "Does that remind you of the fake Sokol article about postmodernism? Maybe the guy is trying to make fun of the book by imitating postmodernism.
That is a very generous way of looking at the review. I think he would just be the kind of person Skoal was making fun of.
Greg wrote: "That is a very generous way of looking at the review. I think he would just be the kind of person Skoal was making fun of."
oh, that dude. i have seen him around. his other photo is of ducks, just to bring all the threads into a nice fat braid.
In the interest of full disclosure, the "guy" is a friend of mine. I'm troubled that disagreement with conclusions drawn in one review have led to digs on his appearance and character. You all seem like intelligent, well-read people. Can't you discuss the merits (or lack thereof) of a review dispassionately without resulting to insults that have nothing to do with the review?
I wasn't insulting his appearance I was commenting on the fact something made me laugh. Dead baby jokes also make me laugh and I would never disparage them. On that note, no I prefer not to have intellectual discussions about the merits of Chuck Palahniuk, I find it takes all the fun out of fluff when you treat it like it like literary fiction.
