How much did you care about "Haunted" as a novel? Was it more interesting just as a collection of short stories than a full narrative? Did you particularly care about the characters in the writers retreat?
And in particular, what did you think about the poems that introduced the writer before each story? Would you rather have preferred the novel have a more traditional structure to tell the story?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
I think the short stories would work better on their own. I thought of the narrative in between as uninteresting filler. When they were cutting their various body parts off and feeding them to the cat I just wanted them all to bleed to death. So, I'd say no, I didn't particularly care about any of the characters.
And I prefer my poems to be poetic.
And yes, I'd like the novel to have a more traditional structure. I'd like it to be written by Stephen King.
I agree, kc. It was really difficult to get into the narrative because you kept having to stop. I can appreciate Palahniuk's attempt to do something different, but I don't think it really worked.
I'd prefer Stephen King, too. I like to read large portions of books in a sitting. After reading a short story or two I would want to stop and digest the stories instead of continuing. That's part of why it took me longer than usual to get through "Haunted."
I liked the poems in that they gave insight to the characters, but it might have made the novel as a whole more interesting had it been done in the narrative.
"I prefer my poems to be poetic."
My thoughts exactly. The content of the poems was sometimes critical to understanding the characters, but they weren't actually poems. And the writing was drivel. Like what the hell is this:
a shadow of a reflection of an image of an illusion
I wanted them all to die, too. They were the scum of the earth. It made the narrative between the stories exhausting and irritating.
I became frustrated with some of the ludicrous elements, such as the appendage-eating. I understand the author was driving home the idea that an artist will do anything to stay out of the slush pile, but there's a point where I expect some characters to demonstrate some decency -- maybe that's not quite the word -- but some redeeming qualities so that I can empathize with them. Otherwise, it's too easy to get fed up and not care about what happens to them.
While I was reading the book, everyone's outrageous actions seemed to fit the situation. Now that I see everyone's critiques, it does seem a little ridiculous.
And the poems were pretty worthless. I kept thinking, well, I suppose people who get poetry will like this prosaic mess. So either none of us get poetry, or it sucked.
Overall, I sort of feel like the structure worked. Only a couple of the stories were strong enough to stand on their own, and if it were a collection of just these stories, everyone would wonder why it sounded like one disjointed movie with cloned narrators. So the narrative thread and the crappy poetry really pulled it together.
Post a Comment