Talk:Chuck Palahniuk: Difference between revisions

Template:Featured article is only for Wikipedia:Featured articles. Template:Mainpage date

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)

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.

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)[reply]

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)

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)

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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

• 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)[reply]