CNN Likes DIARY; I’m Not Sure Why
When I read a review like CNN’s review of Chuck Palahniuk’s Diary, I don’t know what to make of it. Does the reviewer or CNN have some connection to the publisher of the book? Is Chuck sharing his dawg with the reviewer?
Palahniuk writes the story tangentially. He seldom approaches the plot head-on. Instead, he builds it from oblique angles, often obscuring events and motives the way a funhouse mirror reflects reality.
In the midst of her painting, Misty endures a seemingly pointless digression by the doctor on two mystic sects, the Jain Buddhists and the Jewish Essenes.
The reviewer almost told the truth in that passage but couldn’t quite get up the courage. Phrases like “seldom approaches the plot,” “oblique angles,” “obscuring events and motives,” and “pointless digression” pretty well sum up the structure of Diary.
The discourse seems to be a bit of rambling, but it has a very distinct purpose, as does every seemingly inconsequential — even bizarre — turn of events.
Palahniuk constructs his story as precisely as a stage magician’s grand illusion, building to a powerful climax that leaves the audience stunned and breathless. “Diary” triumphantly exposes the evil that lurks in the banality of everyday life.
I was left breathless and stunned by the evil that lies in the banality of this book. I think the exercise of writing it has a lot in common with Andy Warhol’s piss paintings (Oxidation paintings). Perhaps that’s why urine is a major theme in Diary.
| Go to Home - Most Recent Posts