I'm still behind on reviews from 2007 so this will be short.Mediocre isn't the best word, but it's the first word that comes to mind.
Repetitive isn't the best word, but it's the first word that comes to mind.
This is the first Palahniuk that I read, and I wasn't very impressed. The first and last couple of chapters were well written, but the rest was kind of boring and repetitive. Example: near the beginning of the book he mentions that "deja vu" has an opposite, "jamais vu." Interesting. A few chapters later he mentions the same thing, but not in an offhand or clever way, he just copied and pasted the same paragraph that I had read 5 chapters ago. It's repetitive, did I mention that yet? So in then end, what could have been a great book comes off as demeaning, as if he assumes the readers are dumb.
This blog hates Chuck. Good.
ReplyDeleteMy friend is always badgering me to read this and I told him I would. Now I regret it.
ReplyDeleteI found Fight Club enjoyable, but nothing spectacular.
ReplyDeleteBut had you read that paragraph before?
ReplyDeleteI am going to read that this year Carlton, and so help me, if it sucks, I'm going to rip your face off by the hinges.
ReplyDeleteFrom Carlton's review of Fight Club:
ReplyDelete"This book was, above all, spectacular..."
"Palahniuk's command of language was spectacular..."
"Spectacular? That's what I'd call the protagonist of Fight Club..."
"My preferred title? Spectacular Club."
You gotta admit, Spectacular Club does have a nice ring to it.
ReplyDelete"Palahniuk's spectacular was very spectacular and not to mention spectacular. One spectacular might be that the spectacular spectacular was spectacular spectacular spectacular. Spectacular."
ReplyDelete