Definitivamente vivimos en una sociedad.

n  Leggere non è un passatempo da comitiva.
Non è come andare a vedere un film o assistere a un concerto.
È il margine più solitario dello spettro.n (pag. 10)

First, I didn't plan beforehand that reading an essay collection would be so different and harder, for me, than reading fiction. It felt like reading in slow-motion, 30 pages of this book took me as much time as 60 pages of a novel. But I pushed on, because it was interesting, however long it took me to read it. Learning experience still, I prefer consuming non-fiction as audiobooks than physical, I think.

But the book was interesting. It felt like getting samples of the lives of many people I will never meet, different and fascinating in their own right, but that I would never seek to learn more about by myself. And Palahniuk, write about them, select which detail, which element make them interesting and it works. The sampling is great and shows this variety of people, all different yet all trying to find what will give their existence meaning, after all. It makes you think about you own life, about what you're doing to give it value and meaning yourself.

Mediocre - bruttino - bello
Il titolo della recensione contiene 3 giudizi diversi ed ognuno è riservato ad una parte del libro. Si divide in 3 fasi appunto.

INSIEME: è la prima parte, narra le realtà americane delle orge nei locali, dei tornei con le mietitrebbie o combattimenti all'ultimo sangue per coronare il sogno olimpico. A tratti interessante, a tratti noiosa. Lascia di stucco sapere che nel mondo possano esistere realtà che personalmente ho trovato...strambe.
RITRATTI: in questa seconda parte Palahniuk intervista personaggi più o meno famosi, più o meno stravaganti. Da tizi che hanno la mania per i castelli (parte noiosa) a Marylin Manson (parte interessante) a Rocket Guy. Nel complesso questa fase del libro non mi è piaciuta molto.
PERSONALE: la terza parte, autobiografica scorre in maniera decisamente piacevole. L'autore parla di se stesso con autoironia, di come la sua vita sia cambiata dopo la stesura di Fight Club, e di come si sia trovato all'interno di un mondo che non sente suo, senza tralasciare le tristi vicende familiari.

Nel complesso questo libro è stato un piacevole passatempo, non porta via molto tempo, quindi non rischia di essere troppo noioso.

Prisiminiau nihilistinę jaunystę (che, che) ir išsitraukiau iš lentynos seniai ten gulinčią ir neskaitytą "Fight Club" autoriaus esė ir įvairių straipsnių knygelę. O, kokiais 90s iš jos padvelkė - šiek tiek smagios, bet truputį priplėkusios nostalgijos. Sąžiningo įtūžusio ironiko pasakojimai.
Pirmoji knygos dalis - įvairių visuomenės pakraščių dokumentavimas - Palahniukas rašo apie kombainų rodeo JAV provincijoje, apie imtynes, apie steroidų vartotojus,apie pitchingą - bandymą parduoti savo idėją ar rankraštį kino industrijai, apie Rock Creek Lodge Testocle Festival ir t.t. ir pan. Panašių temų panašiu metu savo esė ėmėsi David Foster Wallace. Tik Wallace tekstas - tai fechtavimas, lauko tenisas ar pan. O Palahniukas - boksas, imtynės ir laisvoji kova. Gana įdomu.
Kik nykesnė antroji knygos dalis - poklabiai su žvaigždėm: Juliette Lewis, Andrew Sulivan, etc. Išsiskiria pokalbis su Marilynu Mansonu (dar viena 90s ir šio amžiaus pradžios ikonų).
Trečiojoje dalyje autorius rašo apie save - kaip jam gyvenosi po "Fight Club" sėkmės. jis rašo apie filmo pagal knygą statymą, apie tariamą išgarsėjimą ir pan. bet kažkaip be entuziazmo ir net ironija tokia rūgtelėjusi: "mes visi suprantam, kad ta šlovė maloni, bet hey aš toks pats lūzeris, koks ir buvau, jei ir pasikeičiau tai nedaug, dabar parašysiu jums reportažą, kaip iš tikrųjų niekam nerūpiu ir kokių juokingų nelaimių man nutiko. Hey, aš gi vis dar saviakas, ar ne? Saviakas? na, pasakykit, gi saviakas, chebra?"
Beje, skaitydamas niekaip neatsikračiau minties, kur man visa tai girdėta lietuviškame kontekste. Ogi Martynenko. Neteigiu čia, kad Palahniukas jį įtakojo (gal jis jo net neskaitė) ar kad vienas kitam prilygsta, nes taip nėra. Bet ta intonacija... Ir random facts... ir dvasingumo bei visokių fiziologinių smulkmenų mixas...
Vienžo, skaitykite, jei neturit ką veikti arba pasiilgote tos sunkiai nusakomos tūkstantmečio sandūros dvasios :)

Las cuatro primeras líneas de la introducción constituyen la columna vertebral de los artículos y crónicas que componen “Error humano”: “todos mis libros tratan de una persona solitaria que busca alguna forma de conectar con los demás”. Con esta declaración, Palahniuk abre una serie de textos que se leen con entusiasmo a modo de divertimento.

De algún modo, sirve de trasfondo para sus primeros libros: desde “El club de la pelea” hasta “Diario”. Explica modos de recabar información, maneras de reunir historias escabrosas, métodos para componer relatos con la sencilla complejidad a la que apunta el llamado minimalismo.

No obstante, he de confesar que pasé mi mirada sobre algunos textos que arrojaban datos sin ton ni son, con una resonancia trivial o insignificante; quizás por su carácter localista norteamericano de cual, sin embargo, me quedó la ironía con la que Palahniuk expone la ridiculez de ciertos modos de tener (capitalismo) típicos norteamericanos.

I liked this book.

This is a collection of true stories of very bizarre things that have occurred or occur regularly. They are all as the old adage goes: So strange they could only be true.

In the intro to this book Chuck Palahniuk even admits that he is something of a one trick pony. He views everything in America as the following struggle: We strive to be alone. We fight our way to independence from our fellow human beings by pursuing whatever interest we have, and then we get there and find ourselves lonely, and must reacquaint with our fellow humans. I agree with him, this is the lense that he views everything through, and it is getting annoying in his fiction literature. But these stories, these are true stories. And I think that his writing style is very aptly applied to these stories and telling them. Long story short: Chuck Palahniuk's writing style is best applied to nonfiction.

I read this book because I was staying for a week on the Oregon coast with my family. It seemed appropriate because Chuck Palahniuk is from portland. Also, this book seemed interesting.

I think at 26 years of age I am finally over the phase of my life where I enjoy Chuck Palahniuk books.

Stranger than Fiction es una lectura obligada para todo fan de Palahniuk, aunque no lleve el mismo estilo narrativo que el resto de sus historias. Es una respuesta a muchos por qués que uno se plantea cuando lee sus novelas: sobre su estilo, los temas que aborda, e incluso sobre su propia vida. Los primeros capítulos y algunos retratos son un poco pesados; otros, y sobre todo en "Personal", están buenos.
Me parece genial que, escribiendo historias reales pero inverosímiles, cuestione esa crítica tan común que lo tilda de 'visceral', si la misma realidad nos sobrepasa.

This non-fiction short story collection is divided into three sections: People Together, Portraits, and Personal. As I finish each section, I'll briefly review each short story separately because the problem with short story books is that they can so easily be hit and miss every few pages. Some of it can be gold and some of it can be shit. This is the only way I'll ever remember how much of it was which type. The score next to the title of each story will be on the same five-star scale GoodReads uses for books as a whole.

Testy Festy (2/5) - Chuck's experience at what is essentially a weird orgy in the Midwest. Very graphic, but well written. Still not my cup of tea. Weird way to start a book.

Where Meet Comes From (4/5) - Chuck attends a wrestling competition for Olympic hopefuls. It's a very interesting look into a world I never would have thought about, but very painful to read about in the places where various injuries are discussed.

You Are Here (4/5) - Short piece about pitch-conferences where people pray to sell their story as a movie or book to a producer (or less than that) who they've paid $20-$50 to listen to them for seven minutes. Incredibly well written. Moderately sad or disheartening.

Demolition (1/5) - Chuck goes to a demolition derby that uses tractors insead of cars. I'm sure would be a blast to watch, but it was not particularly fun to read about.

My Life as a Dog (5/5) - Chuck and a friend dress up in animal costumes and walk around Seattle. Mostly stupid and pointless, but a very fun, short read.

Confessions in Stone (1/5) - Chuck talks to people that build castles as a hobby. Sounds interesting as a blurb. Very long and boring in reality.

Frontiers (4/5) - Chuck tries steroids. That's a really over-simplified explanation of this very short story, but it was still interesting and educational.

The People Can (5/5) - Chuck spends some time on a Navy submarine. Incredibly interesting stuff. Mostly educational, but I loved every word.

The Lady (5/5) - Chuck's thoughts on the supernatural and some his own personal experiences with it. My favorite story in this whole section of the book. Highly recommended for anyone, even if you just pick it up and read it there in the library without ever worrying about the rest of the book.

Most of these are very enjoyable. The biggest problem is that the two stories I hated were the longest stories by FAR and they were just really outrageously boring to the point that I struggled to push through them. Like I said, hit and miss. Just major major misses.

The second third of the book is title Portraits and is a series of interview with individuals of varying fame and profession. It was an odd section because the assortment is so random, but I think overall it was a more consistent segment than the first.

In Her Own Words (3/5) – Chuck interviews actress Juliette Lewis. She talks about various parts of films she’s been in and things she believes about work and life. It’s a consistently interesting interview, but not about an actress I’ve ever found myself wanting to learn more about.

Why Isn’t He Budging (1/5) – A series of quotes from Andrew Sullivan, a gay political blogger. The quotes themselves aren’t bad, but there’s no story here. No context. No structure. It’s basically just a one-sided type-up of things a guy said over the course of a few hours. I would’ve learned more from reading his Wikipedia.

Not Chasing Amy (4/5) – Chuck gushes over author Amy Hempel’s body of work. He succeeded in both making me curious to read these book’s I’ve never heard of and making me terrified to read them since he claims once you’re done with it “you’re ruined”. “You go beyond this point, and almost every book you’ll ever read will suck.” Those are direct quotes. That’s a scary sales pitch. Very well written piece though.

Reading Yourself (5/5) – Chuck interview shock-rocker Marilyn Manson. The interview is structured around Manson doing his own Tarot card reading. Some of it delves into his history, his future, his plans, his relationships, and beyond. I don’t listen to Marilyn Manson, but I find him intriguing. Between that and the equally interesting and educational lesson on Tarot cards, I loved this entry.

Bodhisattvas (5/5) – Chuck interviews a woman named Michelle Keating who trains dogs to find bodies in the aftermath of horrible natural disasters. I was biased for this one because I love dogs so much and will happily learn about anything involving them that you want to share with me. Due to their primary duty in this situation is to locate dead bodies, it wasn’t super uplifting, but I still was hooked on reading it.

Human Error (5/5) – Chuck interviews Brian Walker, aka Rocket Guy, aka the guy who wants to be the first person independently launched into space (or at least 50 miles up) by his own invention. Walker is quite the character. I wasn’t bored for a single sentence of what was one of the longest Portraits of the bunch. It’s difficult to explain the draw, but it was fascinating as soon as it started.

Dear Mr. Levin (5/5) – Chuck writes a veritable love letter to Ira Levin, the author behind Rosemary’s Baby and The Stepford Wives among others. The analysis of his work was spot on and very enjoyable to read.

The final section of the book is called "Personal" and recounts some of Palahniuk's personal experience, most of them revolving around the success of Fight Club as it became a movie. The whole section was very interesting, but every story was too short and not different enough to bother rating individually. I give the whole section a (4/5).

There were times when I thought I would regret agreeing to read this book, but in the end I'm really glad I did. The lows are very low, but all said, they're few and far between and the rest of the material solidly ranges from Good to Very Good.

Palahniuk is right. These essays of his are most certainly stranger than fiction. Just from the every first essay alone, you’re hoping that he’s making all this up. But no. The annual Rock Creek Lodge Testicle Festival just outside of Missoula, MT, detailed in the aptly-titled “Testy Festy”, is the kind of bizarre and mind-boggling public orgy that you think can – or should, rather – exist only in the most perverted of minds. (The shocking writing and fantasy worlds of Marquis de Sade comes readily to mind.) Yet it is all very real. (Too much Viagra and Spanish fly, perhaps? One can only wonder.)
t
Luckily for us, the rest of this volume of odds and ends Palahniuk composed in-between his novels are much less pornographic, but just as equally bizarre. In the first section “People Together”, we meet semi-professional wrestlers hoping to make the U.S. Olympic team (with or without cauliflowered ears), desperate amateur screenwriters making their three-minute pit to studio hacks, die-hard combine demolition derby contestants in rural Washington State, Northwest castle-builders (a favorite chapter of mine, as I too fantasize about living behind medieval walls…with modern amenities, of course), and psychic shyster who are surprisingly capable of actual divination (but only after one too many glasses of red wine).

In the section “Portraits”, Palahniuk spends a lot of time shedding light on the oddity known as Hollywood. Whether it be his odd interview with Juliette Lewis (mainly for her naïve belief in Scientology – that racket of all rackets), or even Marilyn Manson’s depressing tarot-card self-reading in his attic, I am reassured once again that a lot of money – no, make that too much money – can make a self-deluding nut out of you. (The spirit of Howard Hughes is alive and well in the Hollywood Hills and the ephemeral and fickle world of celebrity-dom.)

In “Personal”, his third and final section, Palahniuk exorcises many a demon by confessing to a brief addiction to anabolic steroids – which he kicked after his balls shriveled up (which may classify as TMI for some people) – as well as the odd encounters that he still gets to this day from fans of Fight Club, his novel-turned-cinematic-hit.

Palahniuk’s prose is best described as a form of personal confession, but told with the eye of a cultural anthropologist, voyeur, and journalist all wrapped in one. I may not know his fiction one bit – except for seeing David Fincher’s cinematic adaptation of his novel Fight Club – but my curiosity is now piqued. Let’s hope it’s just as riveting and astonishing as his non-fiction.

There are times he digs deep into humanity (see the essays on castle building, taking testosterone, The Lady, sanctity and HIV, or writers conferences, or Ira Leavenson), but most of the time he has a fascinating idea or interesting topic that never quite hits or goes on far too long.