Talk:Chuck Palahniuk/Archive 1

Archive 1

Book pictures

Well, now that we have a photo of the man himself, how about some picture(s) of his books? I suggest avoiding the movie tie-in paperback for Fight Club, since we already have a photo of the DVD, which is enough for the film; the original hardcover or the new paperback would be OK though. Of course, the hardcover of that book is kind of obscure, so I recommend photoing either the new paperback or other books of his instead.
By the way, an interesting idea for a photo of his books would be a compilation containing several of them, like Image:USCurrency.jpg. -- LGagnon 03:41, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)

Honestly, what is the rationale behind including a photograph an author's books all together? Are the folks on the talk page for Faulkner scrambling to do this? Inoculatedcities 17:07, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Fainting

I was the anonymous user who added the "humorous effect" line (I didn't have my account on that computer). I find it very difficult to believe that over 50 people fainted just from hearing the reading of a story. I might believe that one or two squeamish or psychologically weak individuals did so, but 50 seriously stretches the bounds of belief. A story is mere words, after all.

On the other hand, Chuck Palahniuk seems very much the type of author who would orchestrate a stunt of this type by strategically instructing members of the audience to "faint", for extra publicity and humorous effect. This explanation seems to me more plausible than the claim that 50 people actually fainted. A preliminary google search shows that some fans believe that the faintings were staged, and others believe they were real. So if the "staged" explanation is going to be categorically removed, I would like to see some references and evidence --- otherwise the NPOV way is to provide both explanations. --Shibboleth 06:36, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The original edit that you made said "it is likely" instead of "it is possible". What you originally added seemed biased (it seemed to suggest your point of view that 50 people couldn't have fainted, rather than merely pointing out that it might not have happened), so I removed that to keep the article in a NPOV state. And while some fans may doubt that some of the people are fainting, there has been no claims that all of them were fake, and I have even heard some fans claim that they felt lightheaded while listening to the readings. Thus, even if you have proof that some fans doubt it, there is still proof that other fans do believe it. -- LGagnon 12:04, Aug 24, 2004 (UTC)

For the record, I am a very strong-stomached person. I have seen every horribly, gory, foul, horrific picture and video on the internet and have never been made to feel all that sick by any of it. However, while reading the essay in question at school, I too began to feel very light-headed and eventually had to excuse myself from my study hall so that I cold run to the nurses office to vomit. I can't explain it, but I can definately believe the story about 50 people fainting spread out over a number of readings.

The version I read (in an email forwarding the short story) claimed Chuck asked the audience to attempt to hold their breath for the duration of the short story, which is a plausible explaination for so many people fainting. The talk pages more clearly explain the number of people who fainted was cumulative, during the entire book tour of many different locations. The wording of the article can be misinterpreted at the moment, although it obvously makes more sense in hindsight that the number the faintings were not all at the one reading. -- Horkana 02:50, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Tour/Fainting

Chuck spoke last night here at the University at Albany. I took some pictures and I'll be happy to share them once developed. As far as "fainting" goes, I didn't see anyone faint, but Chuck asked if anyone fainted and supposedly one person did. Chuck said that puts the number at 53. Whether that's 53 for this year, or his current tour, I have no idea. Frankly, I could see how if someone wasn't prepared to hear Chuck read what he read, they might react negatively including fainting. It's pretty graphic and disturbing if you can't laugh at it (which is how most dealt with it)--Feitclub 15:45, Sep 22, 2004 (UTC)

The reason the peopl are fainting is the same reason the author gives for people fainting in "Survivor" -- 24.70.95.203

Which is? Mark the reason you mention as a spoiler if you must but do not assume everyone has read "Survivor" yet. -- Horkana 03:05, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the picture. :) Make sure to add in the details on where and when the photo was taken (exact time isn't neccasary, but the date should be in there), as well as the name of the tour. -- LGagnon 18:44, Sep 22, 2004 (UTC)

Fight Club success

Wasn't FC the #1 movie in the country for a short while? I remember there were commercials (some of which are on the DVD) that said it was the number 1 movie in the country. I know it did bad in the long run, but my original phrasing in the article was meant to reflect the short period of popularity (thus the "for a short time" part). It would probably be best to further elaborate this in the article. -- LGagnon 18:48, Sep 22, 2004 (UTC)

Here's my thinking: "box office disappointment" sums up a long, complex story better suited to a page dedicated to the film, not to Chuck. Yes, it was #1 opening weekend, but it only grossed $37 million in the US while it cost at least $70, possibly $85 million when you factor in publicity. It did decent business overseas, although I'd have to research further to figure out when that happened, and then estimate whether or not it broke even. In any case, the US theatrical release was a near-bomb, costing some high-profile execs at Fox their jobs.

Now I've suggested splitting Fight Club into (book) and (movie) pages, and if someone wants to spearhead that I think that will lend itself to more, detailed articles being written about the book, the movie, and Chuck. --Feitclub 19:50, Sep 22, 2004 (UTC)

Ok, all good information, and probably useful in the FC article itself (btw, the budget was $63 million; that's in the FC article already). I just wanted to make sure that the fact that it wasn't completely ignored at theatres was mentioned there, for the sake of not appearing somewhat misinformative.

As for the FC article itself, I've given my opinion on it in its talk page. I'll probably do some work on that myself. -- LGagnon 20:21, Sep 22, 2004 (UTC)

---

Old (resolved) issues

Could we link to some kind of e-book library where some of his books can be downloaded? If anyone is up to hosting it, I have Fight Club on .pdf along with some other books.DryGrain 21:20, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)

: Not a good idea. The last thing we need is links to pirated copies of books here. And even a link to a book store that sells e-books of his might be a bit excessive. For that case, we'd just add the ISBN number to the individual book's article, so that you can chose the store you want to buy it from. -- LGagnon

---

I think that "not related to the television program." is not a usefull disambiguation at all, as a television program of such a nature could not be based upon a novel. An encyclopedia should define terms by what they are and not by what they could be mistaken for. An example of this is the Author Neal Stephenson, he has written a book called "Zodiac", however there is no reference on his page that this should not be confused with the TV series Zodiac. I could find hundreds of examples like this one, and think that anyone would agree that it is incorrect to add such references to each "ambiguous" title. snoyes 18:29 Feb 13, 2003 (UTC)

Pictures needed from people who attend Chuck's tours

As the article mentions, Chuck tends to go on tours to promote his books. The next one will most likely happen after the release of Haunted. There is a tour info page at chuckpalahniuk.net here, which should have info on the locations that the tour will stop when the book is released. If a tour stop is going to be near you, please bring a camera along and upload a picture of Chuck to Wikipedia. With that, we can finally feature this article on the main page. -- LGagnon 18:19, Aug 19, 2004 (UTC)

Similar to Irvine Welsh?

Like how? I've read tonnes of the both of them and there's little resemblence... other than both have a tendency to write strings of similar novels. User:146.176.2.17

I concur. In fact, I have a lot of trouble with the last part of that paragraph (Everyone knows that X'ers, for the most part, don't read. But this is just one example). I would rewrite it, but I don't know if editing it would change the main page at the same time, being that it is a featured article and such like. Two Halves, why won't he log in?

Palahniuk is a member of Generation X; that is the important distinction for that sentence. And it's not fair to make such a generalization of X'ers (which I doubt is even correct) and use it to determine how to write the article. As for the resenblance to Irvine Welsh, this is something that's been pointed out by both Palahniuk and members of his web site. -- LGagnon 23:02, Jan 8, 2005 (UTC)

I think that you missed the sarcasm in my comment. (It was meant as humorous comment about my peers, and by the way, I was born in 1966, so I'm a member of aformentioned generation.) Oy vey! Obviously, User:LGagnon and the other contributors have put much effort into writing this article. I didn't have a problem with the article so much the statement that CP is of great significance to X'ers. (How would you possibly demonstrate that?) -- Two Halves

So what is the "resemblence" to Irvine Welsh? MacRusgail 01:27, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Some themes mentioned in Welsh's article: denial of opportunity, hooliganism, suppressed homosexuality, low paid work, drug use, sodomy, class division, humour. All those have been used in Palahniuk's work. And like I said, comparisons are often made. -- LGagnon 01:59, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

Shooting

Shackleford then shot them both and dragged their bodies into Fontaine's cabin home

Can someone rewrite this sentence? Who is them both? The only people mentioned so far are Shackleford, Fontaine, and Palahniuk. The description seems to say he shot Fontaine and Palahniuk. If this is in fact true, please rewrite to be explicit about it. Tempshill 02:25, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It is already mentioned that Fontaine and Fred Palahniuk were the people referred to. I do not see how this is ambiguous, because Fontaine and Fred Palahniuk are the only other two people mentioned other than Shackleford. -- LGagnon 04:39, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)

Name

From what country is the name "Palahniuk"? Bastie 19:41, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

It's Ukrainian (according to the man himself). -- LGagnon 20:33, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

Living In Portland? I thought he moved.

Last I heard, Chuck moved out of Portland. I think he is now in Seattle or San Francisco. Dancemaster 14:12, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Until you know for sure where he's living, don't change it. When you do find out, please point out your source here just so that we have definite proof. -- LGagnon 16:05, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

• While he still owns a house on Sauvie Island, Palahniuk recently moved to coastal Washington. "My grandparents died last year, and my family started to fall apart," he explains. "We're just trying to put the family back together." http://www.portlandtribune.com/archview.cgi?id=18240

8th paragraph under the heading "Crackpots and lunatics" Dancemaster 17:27, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

It'd be nice to have the exact city mentioned rather than just coastal WA. -- LGagnon 22:01, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

• It would also be nice to have another source on it. So far, the only place I've seen it mentioned is Portland Tribune. Also, I asked a clerk at Powell's City of Books. But other than that, surprisingly, no one really talks about the move. It's not a big deal to me. I'm not really a fan of his per se. I admire aspects of his work; but not necessarily a fan. I just wanted to point this out if anyone was interested. Dancemaster 23:16, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

I found another article that mentions his reasons for moving but it doesnt mention a city. http://enjoyment.independent.co.uk/books/features/article49383.ece Its about halfway down on the right column. --Tragicweek 06:35, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

He's living in Vancouver, Washington which is a suburb just north of Portland, Oregon. The source for this has a link that no longer works, but I found the article somewhere else. I would like to fix the bad link, but don't know how. Here's the link to the copy of the article where Mr. Palahniuk talks about living in the outskirts of Vancouver, Washington. JJPasadena (talk) 19:05, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

• http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Open+book%3a+Chuck+Palahniuk+writes+stories+that+fearlessly+expose+the...-a0180064510

Biography Additions

Would it appropriate to add that when Chuck was 18 his father told him about why he had no paternal grandparents? Apparently when Fred Palahniuk was 3 or 4, depending on the source, his father and his mom got in a fight over a sewing machine and all of Fred's siblings ran into the woods while Fred was under his bed and then Fred's father went looking for him, then after not finding him, Freds father killed himself. It was in a Rolling Stone article/interview called "A Heartbreaking Life of Staggering Weirdness" by Erik Hedegaard. The article also says "When Chuck is sixteen he realizes he is gay."--Tragicweek 02:24, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

It wouldn't be a problem to add that stuff, it's just a matter of deciding where it would be appropriate to add it. Also, make sure you have all the facts straight and at least one source to back it up (please add it to the References section along with a parenthetical citation next to the info). -- LGagnon 04:26, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Laura Miller & salon.com review

The paragraph in the criticism section about sexism is just plain wrong. Laura Miller's review contains no criticism based on perceived sexism or chauvanism. Why was my correction reverted? Miller's criticism is entirely based on the quality of the writing, supposed inaccuracy and a few other things. Her only mention of gender is when she depicts his typical reader as a fat adolescent male (which seems more like sexism on her part than Chuck's).

Also the 'some fans retort' bit fails to meet WP:Verifiability and sounds like code for 'this editor thinks'. And it would also be good to provide concrete examples for the 'some critics' too.

Ashmoo 04:03, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

The "some fans" were the ones who wrote in the letters section of Salon. As for Miller, she has made several comments on Palahniuk in the past. The Diary review is the only readily available one I can find; I know that she has made harsh comments on Chuck in the past, and with some digging through Salon's archives we might be able to find the source needed. Still, the "fat adolescent male" comment does sound like an accusation of chauvanism, and should work for the purpose of this article. -- LGagnon 14:13, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I wasn't aware that she had made other comments, although I really think it would be preferable to get sources. I can accept what you're saying about the 'some fans' although I think we need to ensure that we report what was said and not introduce our own opinions. Lastly, I really don't think the 'fat adolescent male' comment is any form of accusation of chauvanism. It seemed to simply be commenting on young men's perceived love of violence, bodily fluids and 'fucked up shit', without any mention of gender issues. Regards, Ashmoo 23:14, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Pronounciation

We have 2 different ones in the article now. Which one is accurate? -- LGagnon 19:50, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not absolutely certain. If someone can confirm the pronunciation of his name (with a source preferably) it would be helpful. Thanks. ⟳ausa کui ^× 13:02, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

It's been mentioned in several interviews and article on him. A little searching should come up with proof backing the pronounciation that I originaly added (which may not have been IPA, but it was accurate). -- LGagnon 21:19, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Criticism section

I hope my edits to the criticism section don't upset anyone. I think the section needs to be neatened up. As it is hardly any of the criticisms or their responses are attributed to actual sources. I like his books, but I know there are people other there who don't and I think we need to resist the temptation to offer retorts to existing criticisms under the guise of 'some fans counter...'. Ideally, I think the section should be smaller and just say 'this critic says this..., this one says this..., Palahniuk responded by saying...' . I will endevour to dig up some actual reviews. Ashmoo 00:05, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

You deleted a sentence that was backed by the Salon letters section ("Many have argued that Miller and similar critics ignore the existence of Palahniuk's female fans; in fact, some of those who criticized Miller's review are female fans themselves."). You can revise that if you want, but I think it should stay in some form, since it shows some general fan opinions that are backed by a source. -- LGagnon 01:27, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

The point is to avoid weasel terms. If Salon said something, then the article should say "Salon said..." not "Some people said..." This reduces ambiguity about who said what, and reduces the possibility of original research and personal editorializing in the article. ⟳ausa کui ^× 13:04, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I understand that. My point is that, despite the weasel terms, it was backed up by a source. The sentence could be reworded instead of deleted. -- LGagnon 21:17, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I think that using the onion review is just bad. People aren't going to the onion for literary criticism; unfortunately or not, Palahniuk's books aern't getting ripped apart by Michiko Kakutani - yet.

It's the Onion AV Club, not The Onion. It's not satirical. And granted it's not big-name literary criticism, but it is criticism nonetheless. -- LGagnon 16:30, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment originally posted here 4 May 2010 moved below to #Criticism section (2010).

Books on Amazon.com

If you go to Amazon.com and look up chuck;s books there is a book called "Non Fiction" with his name on it. What is this? -- 140.247.188.180

The British edition of Stranger Than Fiction: True Stories was named Nonfiction. This is mentioned in the book's article. -- LGagnon 20:07, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Original research

This is a very good article but, unfortunately, the "Writing style" section seems to be original research. Are all the claims made attributable to reliable sources per WP:V? Or are these the impressions of the authors of this article? The latter seems probable. Mikker ^(...) 02:55, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

He's written several essays on his website on his writing style which are supposed to be compiled in his next non-fiction book. It's not original research, it's based on his own analysis. -- LGagnon 17:44, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I'll take your word for it. But can it be cited then please? If it is, I'll be happy to delete the OR tag myself. Mikker ^(...) 18:35, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Removing last paragraph under criticism section

I have removed this paragraph. First of all, Terminal velocity is simply the fastest something can fall before friction stops it from accelerating anymore, the value is determined by mass, atmosphere, and gravity, but Palahniuk didn't "get the science wrong" by only mentioning acceleration and gravity. Second of all, the rest of the paragraph seems to deal with "incorrect" versions of urban legends, but this is ludicrous since the novels are works of fiction so Palahniuk can come up with any urban legend he wants, also the nature of urban legends means that they have countless different versions anyways so no single version can be singled out for being the only correct one.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 05:44, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Plus, it was all unsourced Original Research. Ashmoo 06:24, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

That too :)

Quotes from Chuck?

On his website, he has a lot of good quotes. I don't know if these are really important, but do you think a quotation section would be okay for his page? You can look at the quotes here: http://www.chuckpalahniuk.com/quotes.php I love all. 20:24, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Bibliography

I find it odd that an unpublished book is included in the Bibliography. It is already mentioned elsewhere that elements of it were incorporated into Fight Club. To be totally skeptical about it how can anyone be sure it really exists if it was never published? Is it standard practice in author bibliographies to also list unpublished books or other works? It is a bit of rotten tease to award such prominence to a book we are unlikely to ever see. -- Horkana 03:05, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

You're absolutely correct: In standard bibliographies, unpublished works are not accorded the same prominence as published ones. Unpublished manuscripts would appear in a catalog of the author's papers, and such a catalog might be appended to a very thorough bibliographic treatment of the author. But as far as bibliographic A-list material, only published books count. I think Insomnia should certainly be mentioned in the body of the article, but it should be dropped from the list of Palahniuk's works.--ShelfSkewed [Talk] 19:54, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Fandom

I find the last paragraph unneccesary. I can't imagine it was written by anyone other than the 'dedicated reader' who had his letters sent back. It sounds bitter and is neither credited nor verified... "The irony is that Palahniuk himself asked for letters on NPR." The irony of what? This has no place in a factual article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.107.0.73 (talk) 22:52, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

i second this statement. there's no reason for this paragraph. i'm assuming the same reasoning behind the addition... it's much akin to someone starting a section on best buy about how their rebate got rejected because it wasn't mailed in time. not to mention...the paragraph isn't coherent, especially the starting line. and it has no sources. i would delete it, but i don't want to remove something that theoretically has a purpose.

its theoretical purpose seems to be to complain about not getting a response, it's also full of grammatical errors it doesn't belong on this page and i am going to delete it GetsEclectic (talk) 20:31, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I removed the 'outdated' tag from the fandom section. as of this date it all appears to be current per his website. if there is a specific issue that someone is questioning, we can look at it maybe. - It doesn't stick. (talk) 02:30, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Zarour Files

What is this? Zarour Files? 2007? I haven't heard about it. Can anybody back that up? -- Xakaxunknownx 17 January 2007

I delete this "book", as there is no real evidence that it exists. Goldenglove 19:04, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Looking at the edit history, it seems that that title was added last November by 71.19.46.17, who sort of disguised the change by piling on a few minor acts of vandalism afterwards. The obvious vandalism was fixed, but the addition of the spurious title went unchanged. --ShelfSkewed [Talk] 19:41, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

city slicker

I read somewhere that Jack Palance's real surname was "Palahniuk" ... any family connection between the actor & the writer? --pagemillroad 21:15, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Both have Ukrainian origin. Have no information about any relationship between Jack & Chuck. This surname is quite popular here in Ukraine, so they could be just namesakes (or very-very far relatives). --Fire.Tree 17:33, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

P.S. The article about Chuck is the featured one in Ukr. Wiki. I was the main author =) and can add some information about Chuck and Ukraine. But it refers to russian sites and I'm not sure about possibility to use it here... --Fire.Tree 17:43, 5 February 2007 (UTC)