Alright then. I'll just jump in. RE: Overall impression: Whoa! By the end of the book yes, I was pretty much blown away. This was unlike anything I can remember reading before in terms of timeline (and characters.)And by the end, as everything gelled and all the pieces fit together, it was oddly satifying. Odd because I pretty much decided by that point that I hated Shannon McFarland, so why should I care?
I spent the first 90 or so pages irritated and utterly confused. The opening scene...was it a film shoot? Was it really happening? Were these real people or actors playing a scene? Jump Jump Jump. I was getting that "Memento" movie headache. But as the story goes on, I adjusted to the unconventional plot movement. I mean it's not like CP doesn't warn you right up front. So, seen in overview, the author is leading you down the road to exactly where he wants you. Does this "bits and pieces" exposition work? Is it integral? Most definitely. It builds tension and confusion which increases the reader's sense of resolution at the end. But.... what a screwed up bunch of whining, superficial, self-abosorbed sociopaths. That's my general impression. Am I wrong?

barbara | June 17, 2002 9:29 AM

Cool! My turn!

The overall feeling of the book was just overwhelming (like CP wanted it, I am sure). I have to say that I pretty much disliked and was unimpressed with ALL the characters.(again - I am sure that was CP's intention) Ugh. What a scary bunch of people! I was also irrated with the way the book was laid out, the constant scene jumping was starting to make me dizzy. I found myself going back and having to re-read a few scenes again. The back cover of the book describes it as "hilarious and daringly unpredictable". Hilarious, no. Unpredictable - most definitely no. It was so extreme that I found it very predictable. I was also a bit grossed out about some of the "in your face" sexual descriptions. Like felching. EWW! Talk about TMI! Let me crawl back into my little own world without too much mental scarring!

Kate | June 17, 2002 10:27 AM

Stylistically, the hyper-narrative CP employs is effective, certainly, in getting across the overly intimate, uncomfortably in-your-face style of the characters' personalities, and Shannon's in particular. IM reads very much like you'd expect the interior of a jaded, scarred, superficial fashion-statement of a person's mind to look.

The style's not altogether unlike the hyperbolic voice used by William Gibson in Neuromancer and several of his short stories ("Johnny Mnemonic" comes to mind), but CP's got something else going on as regards his characterization. He does a lot of good things with each character's individual voice, from choice to words to rhythm. You can almost always tell when Brandy or Shannon or Shannon's parents are speaking, because they all sound different, and not in a trying-too-hard sort of way. CP's got a real gift for that sort of thing, and it integrated with the "TMI" style of Shannon as narrator better than I expected it would.

In other realms of commentary, I was very disappointed with the ending of the book, but I'll save my comments there for when we get more into plot. :-)

Rich | June 17, 2002 11:15 AM

Oh, and as regarded the jumping-around-in-time device, I've seen it done at least as well (the Illuminatus! and Schroedinger's Cat trilogies do that a lot, combined with characters' drug-like dream states), but I've also seen it done a *lot* worse, which just gets frustrating and confusing. It was nicely used in IM - there was a nice straight line of revelation from page one to the end; it just wasn't chronological. :-)

Rich | June 17, 2002 11:22 AM

I thought the jumping-around narritive was flashy and cool, but not all that necessary. it struck me that he was doing it beause he could, not because it served the story better than a straight-up narrative. I have to admit I did like the "Give me_____" *flash* interludes. partly because the whole concept of "give me existential ennui" is so ridiculous, but something I can still almost imagine some pretentious fuckwad photographer saying.

Sarah | June 17, 2002 4:22 PM

Although I don't want to get too much into character discussion yet, I think you're supposed to hate all of them for the simple fact that they hate themselves. Everyone tries to be someone else, but it's all superficial. They change their outsides when what they really need to do is change their insides.

I agree with Sarah that the jumping is flashy as well as ridiculous. I think it is supposed to be like a photo shoot because the past flashes in and out sort of like the shutter on a camera. Or maybe more like a slide show.

The thing I like most about Palahniuk's narrative style is the matter-of-factness of it. The narrator simply does or comments on something without apologizing for it. Shannon's shallow, she knows it, but has absolutely no idea of how to go about changing it other than shooting her face off. That's why I think the hyper-narrative is so crucial to the story. Everything is the way it is simply because it is.

mary | June 17, 2002 6:05 PM

This was my first time reading something in such a hyper-narrative style, and I loved it. And while I'm tempted to say that it was CP's style that blew me away more than the story or characters, I find it difficult, or maybe even pointless, to try to separate the two. Because it seems like they have an almost symbiotic relationship -- as if this frenetic style and these whacked-out characters belong together, like a fish thrives only in water.

So as to your question, Mary, not only did I find the writing style integral to the telling of the story, I can't think of a more effective way for it to have been handled. Certainly, in my opinion, this style allowed the author to breathe more life into these particular characters than if he'd chosen to render them in a more conventional way.

The high point of my reading experience overall, however, was the sensation of seeing an artist redefine a form (i.e., The Novel) I'm fairly familiar with, and maybe even bored with. Without overstating it, it's like experiencing an epiphany or revelation: "Wow! You can do it this way? Really? Why haven't I been exposed to this before?" I know that might sound like hyperbole -- or even just plain naïve -- but it's honestly what I felt.

Some random observations: I loved the deconstructionist, self-referential, stream-of-consciousness "asides" the author made in the person of Shannon (the "Flash. Give me ____" statements, as well as other, less stylized ones); they not only guided me along as a reader, moving the story forward while helping me to make sense of it, but served as glimpses into her troubled (to say the least) mind... I also loved the ending, the way Shannon just seemed to will herself to disappear (although maybe I'm getting a little ahead of myself -- oops!)... And finally, to quote from someone's previous comment, the further I went along in the novel, the more I felt like my head had gone several rounds with Mike Tyson. Indeed, I thought that was one of the points CP was trying to make: that stepping into these people's world was to subject yourself to a measure of mental/emotional trauma; experiencing anything less than that would be to fail in terms of beginning to gain a true understanding of them.

jeff | June 17, 2002 6:09 PM

In terms of the overall feel of the book (I am sure we will delve into the minutae later), I didn't find the non-linear narrative style too offputting after the first chapter or so. It seems to reinforce the superficiality of the characters & the world(s) they inhabit.
My first impression was that Chuck P. is sort of a post-modern Kurt Vonnegut, but with more viscerally disgusting descriptions (the aforementioned felching, the image of "Birds Ate My Face", etc.)

tina | June 17, 2002 10:41 PM

For me, I thought the stylistic jumping of the plot, just added to the overall schizophrenic attitudes and atmosphere of the characters and the plot. I thought it was a very effective means of telling the story, even as it made me dizzy.

As for the story itself, at times I laughed out loud. More times than I want to think about, I was sickened. But more about that later.

Suzy | June 17, 2002 10:52 PM

Like Suzy, I also found a lot of the book funny. In particular, I loved the Xmas present scene in which Shannon is opening box after box of condoms. Also, I laughed her parents peeking behind the curtains in a pitch black house because they were expecting to be hate crimed.

I'm wondering if Kate could explain further why she didn't find it funny. Was it only because of all the grossness?

mary | June 17, 2002 11:54 PM

Word to Rich about CP's impressive talents with characterization and dialogue... to Mary regarding the wonderfully "matter-of-factness" of CP's narrative... and to Suzy for her style sum-up: "I thought it was a very effective means of telling the story, even as it made me dizzy."

I found the condoms/PFLAG donation Xmas presents scene an absolute riot, too! I also loved the (predictable) progression of Seth's obsession with looking like an attractive gay guy (in order to successfully entrap perps -- shyeah, right) to all-out gettin' his freak on with other guys (like the screaming-out-loud sex in the butler's pantry at the wedding). Too funny!

jeff | June 18, 2002 4:00 AM

I loved this book. For a typical 15 year old, this book would be a smidge difficult. But I loved it. And understood it fully. After watching Fight Club, and fulling loving the unexpected twists, my friend introduced me to this book. I was blown away.

I think I loved Brandy the most. She seemed to have a view on the world that most average people wouldnt dare to think of.

The jumping plots was brilliant. And I think its really clever how the narrator flat out speaks to the reader. "dont expect this story to go and then and then and then". In his other book "choke" he also does that the first 2 pages. It keeps you reading because you want to know what happened in the story of the previous paragraph. Not to mention its quite educational on how facial reconstructive surgery mite occur. :)

Mami | April 27, 2003 3:17 AM