I think certain attitudes and approaches ossify with writers who don't evolve. Been reading late Phillip Roth, and am struck by how brilliant and insightful American Pastoral was as a piece of storytelling, and how Roth couldn't have written such a book until he was in his sixties.
With Palahniuk, I don't get the sense his work has evolved to be past the point of being gritty or cool in a severely 90's fashion. Which is fine. But when you strike a chord with America, you'll go back to hit that thing yet again with diminishing results. The parallels to Eminem are immediately clear: the constant self-referential nods, the unnecessary sequels, the urge to offend, the shock horror and comedy, a great three work run then the steady decline (Eminem has definitely had more highs though since, and I believe his next album will be a masterpiece, call me Stan), and so on.
It's the same issue I have with Wes Anderson: evolve. Get out of your comfort zone. I'd love to read a story by Palahniuk about a domestic comedy of manners, or earnest science fiction, or anything else. He is a fantastic writer but his choices have been, in the past, ironically conservative. It's not brave or wild to write about disgusting things if that's your comfort zone. His discomfort would be to write a slice of life story, or a novel about a family living in Portland, Oregon running a pizzeria, or, I dunno, a kid's book. Expand, expand, expand. And not merely subject matter, but the space to allow in certain emotional truths and human observations that more subtle storytelling allows for in exchange for less visceral punch.
Will this happen? Probably not. It'd be like Wes Anderson directing a Fast and Furious spinoff competently. But, in this crazy decade, who knows? Anything is possible.
Same with Bret Easton Ellis (I'm currently halfway through the audiobook of "THE SHARDS") but that's his schtick and I don't mind. I just have to be in the mood for it.
Right. Very apt comparison. Especially with their comfort on the podcast scene, in discussing their processes and their ability to talk publicly about their work. Also, their (how does one say) less-than-orthodox relationship with gayness in American culture and political liberalism, their opinions on cancel culture, their habit of revisiting characters within texts, their shared generation x sneer, and their sheer extroversion. I'll have to check out THE SHARDS. The mood seems right for it.
not saying the guy is an angel but literally no one owes you their sexual orientation status. painting the desire of a person to not be out to the public as some sort of persona grift seems wildly unevolved
i got your point, the work has slid most especially since pygmy. he and i shared the same writing teacher / started in the same writing workshop but in different decades. i don't think there's any debate to the way he enjoys taking other people's stories as his own fodder, esp if you listen to his joe rogan interview - there's a moment he shares a pretty vulnerable experience by cheryl strayed that really wasn't his to tell, and it's in that moment i'm pretty sure he willfully admits he gathers other's pain like this.
but the set up that he's sneaky bc he didn't want to tell people he was gay as your entry into this idea that he's not what he says he is, feels like it feeds into the very reason why ppl, at least at the time, stayed closeted. this is a guy who came up in the AIDS panic (whose writing teacher lived with AIDS for most of his life) who likely faced insane pressure being thrust into the public eye when fight club became a cult classic. matthew shepherd was murdered only in 1998, three years after fight club came out.... and tbh the idea that gays are deceptive has been a cultural stereotype that goes back decades, breeding suspicion that we couldn’t be trusted in other aspects of our lives …. this kind of mistrust from straight / wider culture has been present in everything from literature as far back as gatsby or longer, to mccarthyism, to even now with the hysteria around lgbt people being perceived as “groomers”...
he def has a performative aspect to his public life that served him very well when it was challenging for its time, and i think every famous person has to create a barrier of protection between the public and the private eye just to stay sane, whether it’s better or worse for them - but i don’t see what his desire to keep his sexual orientation private has to do with his inability to evolve his creative work or why it matters to the overall argument over its quality
It seems self-conscious to call out Chuck for his discretion around his private life during a time when I had anxieties about mine. Late 90’s, early 00’s: it was ok to say you knew that someone was gay. But was it ok to say that you were?
Also, Damned was publish post pygmy, and I like it. Actually love it!!! So does my coworker who I lent it to! I actually didn’t like FightClub as much as damned so judge me by that and be done with it. I must look cheap but Damned was damn good. A full LOL out of an LOL on public transit. That’s how I rate ‘em. That’s how I know I love them.
Going to admit that I haven't read as much after Pygmy, so I haven't read Damned. I loved Diary so much that I just keep going back to it. And I read Consider This, which I interviewed him for when it came out.
Just copped this bit from Chuck from an old Esquire interview, which kind of breaks my heart: “God, it’s going to be tough to articulate this,” he says. “Being same-sex-attracted in the tiny town I grew up in was really a dangerous thing. And when I came out to my mother, she said, ‘Don’t tell anybody. Don’t tell anybody, please. They will kill you.’ And I never came out to my father. Then he was murdered in ‘99. So that was always a huge incomplete thing.”
“How old were you when you came out to your mother?” I ask.
“I was sixteen,” he says. He repeats: “And she said, ‘Don’t tell anybody, because they will kill you.’ They will kill you. Because when she was a teenager, somebody in the town was suspected of being homosexual, and his house was burned down, and he was driven out of town. It was such a horrible ordeal that she was terrified it would happen to me."
I just want to say that I accidentally liked and restacked this article before I actually read it because I get excited about Chuck Palahniuk articles. That said, I think it's unfair to say that Mr. Palahniuk should have been more upfront with his personal life, especially in the 90s. Both Palahniuk and Ellis were very clear about the fact that they wanted to be seen as authors and not 'gay authors.' There was quite a bit of prejudice during that time and he doesn't owe anyone that information.
Also I feel that anyone can imply someone is lying about life experiences or by saying "Well Bill Castle paid ladies to scream so..." I don't really see it as being fair. That said, I think "Gut" might be the best short story I've ever read and his book "Make Something Up" is absolutely wonderful.
Also, Mr. Palahniuk's writing tip and events have introduced me to writing at 41. I was a recovering heroin addict and I had no idea what I was going to do next. His reading events and workshops have really helped me with my depression and they helped turn my life around. I mean no disrespect, this is my personal experience with his books and events.
Well thanks for the comment and keeping it civil. I’m well aware of the state of the world back then. I’m 55. Enjoy your writing, if he got you to express yourself with the written word then it did the world some good
Is he like contacted to write a book a year. I'm guessing he just has deadlines and doesn't have time to write a good model in the time frame he's given, so he's gotta stick to his gimmicks and can't do anything new or different. Kind of a cursed way to have a creative career, lest one just fade into obscurity. I've always appreciated the guy for his writing advice. I was a member of The Cult back in the day and it helped me hone in my prose dramatically. Gotta wonder how much of him is just a marketing team.
It’s funny, I’m reading Jeff Vandermeer’s Wonderbook, and just this morning I read this section about how readers only seem to criticize “literary” writers for having a fast output .
“While any writer trying to make a living off of their work would be better off being fast and prolific than not, there is more acceptance and encouragement of fast, prolific writing in the genrefied fields than in the marketplace of literary respectability. Joyce Carol Oates has published hundreds of short stories and more than fifty novels, a feat that is questioned in interviews and looked askance at in reviews, with nearly every reviewer who dislikes her work raising the question of whether she writes too much and too quickly. Such questions rarely arise for writers who are not perpetual candidates for the most prestigious literary awards; indeed, as George R. R. Martin can attest, many readers clamor not for a writer to be patient and careful, but rather to write faster.”
I agree about the downward trajectory, and it’s strange because Chuck’s ‘Plot Spoiler’ newsletter on Substack, in which he dissects other people’s work or talks about literary devices, is very good. If we consider the man himself, I can’t get past the fact that he is a Jim Goad apologist.
1. All writers are liars. It goes with the job. Complaining about that is like complaining that the garbage man smells or the cook is overweight. 2. I've read many of Palahniuk's books and I agree they are an uneven bunch. Some are well structured, others tend to be disjointed. (RANT especially was a low point.) I don't know why he didn't write a better ending for ADJUSTMENT DAY, but it is what it is. 3. As for his personal life: I really don't care. Do not use writers as your moral compass - you'll only be disappointed.
I am very busy today, but I will read your posts when I can. I quickly looked over the titles, and they look to my taste (specifically Three Stigmata of PE). Subbed to you, thanks for reading and commenting.
Good start. Now address the part where several people have calmly, politely, respectfully explained to you how harmful it is to label a person a sneaky liar simply because they refused to come out of the closet on someone else's terms.
The algorithm fed your article to me today. I hadn’t realized how many books he released since I stopped reading him. (The last one I read was either Diary or Lullaby). My book club tried reading Rant and all of us found it untenable.
I haven't read anything post-Lullaby, and whenever I get curious and peek at one it seems worse than the ones before, but man those first 3 were magic!
I have yet to read a Palahniuk. I saw The Fight Club movie. I know a bit of P’s outrageous persona just by its aura. A copy of The Damned was in an array of free books recently and I flipped through it. It didn’t charm me. If I was going to start reading Palahniuk it wouldn’t be with that one. The Palahniuk persona isn’t an attractor for me, though my husband found P’s wildness enticing. Maybe my h would have read P’s books, but for some reason he stopped reading books.
Usually, Invisible Monsters is considered his best. I stand by that one and Survivor for sure. Fight Club is very dated but in the '90s, it definitely caught something, and yet, it's also like a perfect three-chord rock song.
So if you want to read one, IM is my vote. There's so much greatness in there about how Americans value beauty and how they view disability.
I wonder, had he written those first three, and then stopped, how he would be considered.
I ran an auto word-count on Snuff and if you're curious it's exactly 44,900 words in length -- you're right to intuit that it's inentionally format-fucked, because that ought to be around 150 pages in a standard paperback and is only 90% of the general average 50,000 word minimum to designate a novel. I expect his publisher probably had a minimum of both words and pages to net a deal for a "novel" (say, minimum 45k words, 200 pages) rather than a "novella" and he fucked around to try to hit both.
I like the article overall, but the comment shaming Chuck for not being more grateful for receiving a mere 5000 for Fightclub is messed up when you think about it.
Fightclub made 100 million in the box office, and it would not exist without this source material. People who work to create something that produces wealth deserve a part of that wealth - a reasonable slice representative of the labor put in to the project. You're saying that he should be grateful that his creative labor was used, but it sounds like you're making that claim not because it's ethical, but because it's the established norm - writers should expect to get screwed, therefore he should be grateful for it. But that's not actually a justification, it's just pointing to how shitty the status quo is, and when you start justifying things with that logic you find yourself on the bad side of every moral fight in history.
And I get it, we are all subject to the propaganda of our time and this gratitude propaganda is some of the strongest in our culture. I know I've used stronger tone here to make the point, but it's only because I too was under it's spell for a long time. I'd consider the question - how does this belief impact your own view of what you deserve in the world? Who benefits from you taking and promoting this stance?
first off, thanks for a calm, well-thought response. I touched a nerve with a lot of fans who came at me full of rage.
I've written/edited hundreds of book contracts in my career, in genres from kids' books to adult erotica. So here goes:
The $5K is just the advance for the book, against future royalties of book sales. As a first-time author, it was a vote of confidence. It was a generous advance at the time it was made. He literally referred to it as "kiss-off money."
Chuck got paid again for the film option/rights. These two payments are separate things. That amount was not disclosed.
Chuck did get paid royalties past the $5k. We don't have access to what his royalty rate is on this book, nor how many really sold. He ended up making a lot from this book--just not up front. He could have mentioned this, but he's still bitter about his advance.
Books are packages of rights. There are hardcover/trade/mass market rights, film/TV rights, audiobook rights, foreign rights, and eBook rights. Also ancillary rights which will cover video games and toys if that happens. The publisher, who gets a cut of all of these, estimates the income of the book and makes an offer. This estimate, in the literary market, comes from past performance. New authors don't have this track record and are given a standard (for that publisher) offer.
There are authors paid in copies (usually poetry publishers). Some get no advance and only a royalty rate. I've seen $500 advances.
The foreword in which he wrote this really signaled to me his importance of what he's paid--that it supersedes everything else. I wrote this piece in 2023. Had I written it now, I most certainly would put in his recent descriptions of his est/Landmark Forum training. They don't say outright that a person's value is in their earnings, but the subtext is that if you're not earning enough, you haven't transformed properly.
The Werner Erhard influence was the last piece of the puzzle that I didn't know I needed. I knew I was missing something. Fight Club is basically applied theories of est seminars. The false self, destruction of the ego, group ritual transformation, losing your fear of death, etc. See his recent substacks.
Chuck has a keen eye for editing. I follow him for that. He says a lot of good things about other peoples' stories. His understanding of the process seems to be top-notch. But yet his recent books are all guilty of the problems he points out in the works of others. So I can't believe he doesn't notice. It has to be that he doesn't care.
This is the only post I've written here I've thought about taking down. Just because I don't want to deal with the flame wars it brought on me. It really took off a short while back. At first, I was very appreciative of the subscribers it brought me. But then came the rage. Which brought me even more traffic. Social media is lubed by self-righteous indignation. It's not how I want to grow this publication. So maybe I should ax it.
There's a lot of BS in the publishing world--people who make up memoirs, writers who are completely rewritten by ghostwriters and editors, and some authors who are only "house names" and not real people at all. I didn't think questioning whether Chuck is writing bad novels on purpose or if he hired people to faint at his readings was really that big of a deal in light of what goes on. But I guess people don't know what goes on. We live in a world in which people think reality TV is real because of the title.
I'm a pretty un-writerly person so I fear I sound naïve here, but it has taken me some time to figure out what his writing style is. (Apologies if this is not a direct response to your post.)
The first person POV is direct to the reader. It often gives me the feeling I get when approached by a homeless person on the street. Like, "Hey mister, wanna by a watch? Got a cigarette? Have a second? Can I ask you a question?" I feel my guard go up a little. Or I suppose its like any person on the street trying and vying for one's attention. The protagonist is trying to sell me something or get me to buy in on something.
I think certain attitudes and approaches ossify with writers who don't evolve. Been reading late Phillip Roth, and am struck by how brilliant and insightful American Pastoral was as a piece of storytelling, and how Roth couldn't have written such a book until he was in his sixties.
With Palahniuk, I don't get the sense his work has evolved to be past the point of being gritty or cool in a severely 90's fashion. Which is fine. But when you strike a chord with America, you'll go back to hit that thing yet again with diminishing results. The parallels to Eminem are immediately clear: the constant self-referential nods, the unnecessary sequels, the urge to offend, the shock horror and comedy, a great three work run then the steady decline (Eminem has definitely had more highs though since, and I believe his next album will be a masterpiece, call me Stan), and so on.
It's the same issue I have with Wes Anderson: evolve. Get out of your comfort zone. I'd love to read a story by Palahniuk about a domestic comedy of manners, or earnest science fiction, or anything else. He is a fantastic writer but his choices have been, in the past, ironically conservative. It's not brave or wild to write about disgusting things if that's your comfort zone. His discomfort would be to write a slice of life story, or a novel about a family living in Portland, Oregon running a pizzeria, or, I dunno, a kid's book. Expand, expand, expand. And not merely subject matter, but the space to allow in certain emotional truths and human observations that more subtle storytelling allows for in exchange for less visceral punch.
Will this happen? Probably not. It'd be like Wes Anderson directing a Fast and Furious spinoff competently. But, in this crazy decade, who knows? Anything is possible.
Same with Bret Easton Ellis (I'm currently halfway through the audiobook of "THE SHARDS") but that's his schtick and I don't mind. I just have to be in the mood for it.
Right. Very apt comparison. Especially with their comfort on the podcast scene, in discussing their processes and their ability to talk publicly about their work. Also, their (how does one say) less-than-orthodox relationship with gayness in American culture and political liberalism, their opinions on cancel culture, their habit of revisiting characters within texts, their shared generation x sneer, and their sheer extroversion. I'll have to check out THE SHARDS. The mood seems right for it.
Could he be read as a conservative writer? In the 90s, no. But now, when masculinity is toxic on the left? Serious question.
not saying the guy is an angel but literally no one owes you their sexual orientation status. painting the desire of a person to not be out to the public as some sort of persona grift seems wildly unevolved
I agree you missed the point though
i got your point, the work has slid most especially since pygmy. he and i shared the same writing teacher / started in the same writing workshop but in different decades. i don't think there's any debate to the way he enjoys taking other people's stories as his own fodder, esp if you listen to his joe rogan interview - there's a moment he shares a pretty vulnerable experience by cheryl strayed that really wasn't his to tell, and it's in that moment i'm pretty sure he willfully admits he gathers other's pain like this.
but the set up that he's sneaky bc he didn't want to tell people he was gay as your entry into this idea that he's not what he says he is, feels like it feeds into the very reason why ppl, at least at the time, stayed closeted. this is a guy who came up in the AIDS panic (whose writing teacher lived with AIDS for most of his life) who likely faced insane pressure being thrust into the public eye when fight club became a cult classic. matthew shepherd was murdered only in 1998, three years after fight club came out.... and tbh the idea that gays are deceptive has been a cultural stereotype that goes back decades, breeding suspicion that we couldn’t be trusted in other aspects of our lives …. this kind of mistrust from straight / wider culture has been present in everything from literature as far back as gatsby or longer, to mccarthyism, to even now with the hysteria around lgbt people being perceived as “groomers”...
he def has a performative aspect to his public life that served him very well when it was challenging for its time, and i think every famous person has to create a barrier of protection between the public and the private eye just to stay sane, whether it’s better or worse for them - but i don’t see what his desire to keep his sexual orientation private has to do with his inability to evolve his creative work or why it matters to the overall argument over its quality
It seems self-conscious to call out Chuck for his discretion around his private life during a time when I had anxieties about mine. Late 90’s, early 00’s: it was ok to say you knew that someone was gay. But was it ok to say that you were?
Also, Damned was publish post pygmy, and I like it. Actually love it!!! So does my coworker who I lent it to! I actually didn’t like FightClub as much as damned so judge me by that and be done with it. I must look cheap but Damned was damn good. A full LOL out of an LOL on public transit. That’s how I rate ‘em. That’s how I know I love them.
Going to admit that I haven't read as much after Pygmy, so I haven't read Damned. I loved Diary so much that I just keep going back to it. And I read Consider This, which I interviewed him for when it came out.
Just copped this bit from Chuck from an old Esquire interview, which kind of breaks my heart: “God, it’s going to be tough to articulate this,” he says. “Being same-sex-attracted in the tiny town I grew up in was really a dangerous thing. And when I came out to my mother, she said, ‘Don’t tell anybody. Don’t tell anybody, please. They will kill you.’ And I never came out to my father. Then he was murdered in ‘99. So that was always a huge incomplete thing.”
“How old were you when you came out to your mother?” I ask.
“I was sixteen,” he says. He repeats: “And she said, ‘Don’t tell anybody, because they will kill you.’ They will kill you. Because when she was a teenager, somebody in the town was suspected of being homosexual, and his house was burned down, and he was driven out of town. It was such a horrible ordeal that she was terrified it would happen to me."
https://www.esquire.com/entertainment/books/a44891150/chuck-palahniuk-fight-club-not-forever-but-for-now/
Exactly.
Man, I loved Rant. 😆
Plenty of people did. Thanks for reading!
I just want to say that I accidentally liked and restacked this article before I actually read it because I get excited about Chuck Palahniuk articles. That said, I think it's unfair to say that Mr. Palahniuk should have been more upfront with his personal life, especially in the 90s. Both Palahniuk and Ellis were very clear about the fact that they wanted to be seen as authors and not 'gay authors.' There was quite a bit of prejudice during that time and he doesn't owe anyone that information.
Also I feel that anyone can imply someone is lying about life experiences or by saying "Well Bill Castle paid ladies to scream so..." I don't really see it as being fair. That said, I think "Gut" might be the best short story I've ever read and his book "Make Something Up" is absolutely wonderful.
Also, Mr. Palahniuk's writing tip and events have introduced me to writing at 41. I was a recovering heroin addict and I had no idea what I was going to do next. His reading events and workshops have really helped me with my depression and they helped turn my life around. I mean no disrespect, this is my personal experience with his books and events.
Well thanks for the comment and keeping it civil. I’m well aware of the state of the world back then. I’m 55. Enjoy your writing, if he got you to express yourself with the written word then it did the world some good
Also, "Guts" was one of those few stories I shared non-stop for like a week and EVERYONE was blown away by that tale. It really is fantastic.
Is he like contacted to write a book a year. I'm guessing he just has deadlines and doesn't have time to write a good model in the time frame he's given, so he's gotta stick to his gimmicks and can't do anything new or different. Kind of a cursed way to have a creative career, lest one just fade into obscurity. I've always appreciated the guy for his writing advice. I was a member of The Cult back in the day and it helped me hone in my prose dramatically. Gotta wonder how much of him is just a marketing team.
Exactly. Nice insights
It’s funny, I’m reading Jeff Vandermeer’s Wonderbook, and just this morning I read this section about how readers only seem to criticize “literary” writers for having a fast output .
“While any writer trying to make a living off of their work would be better off being fast and prolific than not, there is more acceptance and encouragement of fast, prolific writing in the genrefied fields than in the marketplace of literary respectability. Joyce Carol Oates has published hundreds of short stories and more than fifty novels, a feat that is questioned in interviews and looked askance at in reviews, with nearly every reviewer who dislikes her work raising the question of whether she writes too much and too quickly. Such questions rarely arise for writers who are not perpetual candidates for the most prestigious literary awards; indeed, as George R. R. Martin can attest, many readers clamor not for a writer to be patient and careful, but rather to write faster.”
I agree about the downward trajectory, and it’s strange because Chuck’s ‘Plot Spoiler’ newsletter on Substack, in which he dissects other people’s work or talks about literary devices, is very good. If we consider the man himself, I can’t get past the fact that he is a Jim Goad apologist.
Oh wow Jim Goad!
1. All writers are liars. It goes with the job. Complaining about that is like complaining that the garbage man smells or the cook is overweight. 2. I've read many of Palahniuk's books and I agree they are an uneven bunch. Some are well structured, others tend to be disjointed. (RANT especially was a low point.) I don't know why he didn't write a better ending for ADJUSTMENT DAY, but it is what it is. 3. As for his personal life: I really don't care. Do not use writers as your moral compass - you'll only be disappointed.
I am very busy today, but I will read your posts when I can. I quickly looked over the titles, and they look to my taste (specifically Three Stigmata of PE). Subbed to you, thanks for reading and commenting.
Here's an interview with one of the Cacophony Society's founders talking about Palahniuk being a member, including a picture of him in Santa suit:
https://www.7x7.com/project-mayhem-inside-the-wild-world-and-history-of-sfs-cacophony-soci-1786507185.html
Amended. And I linked you and subbed
Well thank you Brian. I’ll amend the post. This has been a rare example of a helpful comment about me being wrong.
I’ve gotten a lot of “you suck” type comments lol
Good start. Now address the part where several people have calmly, politely, respectfully explained to you how harmful it is to label a person a sneaky liar simply because they refused to come out of the closet on someone else's terms.
The algorithm fed your article to me today. I hadn’t realized how many books he released since I stopped reading him. (The last one I read was either Diary or Lullaby). My book club tried reading Rant and all of us found it untenable.
Yep. Baffles me. Thanks for stopping by!
I haven't read anything post-Lullaby, and whenever I get curious and peek at one it seems worse than the ones before, but man those first 3 were magic!
I have yet to read a Palahniuk. I saw The Fight Club movie. I know a bit of P’s outrageous persona just by its aura. A copy of The Damned was in an array of free books recently and I flipped through it. It didn’t charm me. If I was going to start reading Palahniuk it wouldn’t be with that one. The Palahniuk persona isn’t an attractor for me, though my husband found P’s wildness enticing. Maybe my h would have read P’s books, but for some reason he stopped reading books.
Usually, Invisible Monsters is considered his best. I stand by that one and Survivor for sure. Fight Club is very dated but in the '90s, it definitely caught something, and yet, it's also like a perfect three-chord rock song.
So if you want to read one, IM is my vote. There's so much greatness in there about how Americans value beauty and how they view disability.
I wonder, had he written those first three, and then stopped, how he would be considered.
Poorer?
I ran an auto word-count on Snuff and if you're curious it's exactly 44,900 words in length -- you're right to intuit that it's inentionally format-fucked, because that ought to be around 150 pages in a standard paperback and is only 90% of the general average 50,000 word minimum to designate a novel. I expect his publisher probably had a minimum of both words and pages to net a deal for a "novel" (say, minimum 45k words, 200 pages) rather than a "novella" and he fucked around to try to hit both.
Ha! nice detective work. thanks! I would love to know the real behind-the-scenes info on this title.
Have you read Adjustment Day? A flawed novel but I think prescient in a way similar to his earlier works.
I like the article overall, but the comment shaming Chuck for not being more grateful for receiving a mere 5000 for Fightclub is messed up when you think about it.
Fightclub made 100 million in the box office, and it would not exist without this source material. People who work to create something that produces wealth deserve a part of that wealth - a reasonable slice representative of the labor put in to the project. You're saying that he should be grateful that his creative labor was used, but it sounds like you're making that claim not because it's ethical, but because it's the established norm - writers should expect to get screwed, therefore he should be grateful for it. But that's not actually a justification, it's just pointing to how shitty the status quo is, and when you start justifying things with that logic you find yourself on the bad side of every moral fight in history.
And I get it, we are all subject to the propaganda of our time and this gratitude propaganda is some of the strongest in our culture. I know I've used stronger tone here to make the point, but it's only because I too was under it's spell for a long time. I'd consider the question - how does this belief impact your own view of what you deserve in the world? Who benefits from you taking and promoting this stance?
Hope this finds you well.
first off, thanks for a calm, well-thought response. I touched a nerve with a lot of fans who came at me full of rage.
I've written/edited hundreds of book contracts in my career, in genres from kids' books to adult erotica. So here goes:
The $5K is just the advance for the book, against future royalties of book sales. As a first-time author, it was a vote of confidence. It was a generous advance at the time it was made. He literally referred to it as "kiss-off money."
Chuck got paid again for the film option/rights. These two payments are separate things. That amount was not disclosed.
Chuck did get paid royalties past the $5k. We don't have access to what his royalty rate is on this book, nor how many really sold. He ended up making a lot from this book--just not up front. He could have mentioned this, but he's still bitter about his advance.
Books are packages of rights. There are hardcover/trade/mass market rights, film/TV rights, audiobook rights, foreign rights, and eBook rights. Also ancillary rights which will cover video games and toys if that happens. The publisher, who gets a cut of all of these, estimates the income of the book and makes an offer. This estimate, in the literary market, comes from past performance. New authors don't have this track record and are given a standard (for that publisher) offer.
There are authors paid in copies (usually poetry publishers). Some get no advance and only a royalty rate. I've seen $500 advances.
The foreword in which he wrote this really signaled to me his importance of what he's paid--that it supersedes everything else. I wrote this piece in 2023. Had I written it now, I most certainly would put in his recent descriptions of his est/Landmark Forum training. They don't say outright that a person's value is in their earnings, but the subtext is that if you're not earning enough, you haven't transformed properly.
The Werner Erhard influence was the last piece of the puzzle that I didn't know I needed. I knew I was missing something. Fight Club is basically applied theories of est seminars. The false self, destruction of the ego, group ritual transformation, losing your fear of death, etc. See his recent substacks.
Chuck has a keen eye for editing. I follow him for that. He says a lot of good things about other peoples' stories. His understanding of the process seems to be top-notch. But yet his recent books are all guilty of the problems he points out in the works of others. So I can't believe he doesn't notice. It has to be that he doesn't care.
This is the only post I've written here I've thought about taking down. Just because I don't want to deal with the flame wars it brought on me. It really took off a short while back. At first, I was very appreciative of the subscribers it brought me. But then came the rage. Which brought me even more traffic. Social media is lubed by self-righteous indignation. It's not how I want to grow this publication. So maybe I should ax it.
There's a lot of BS in the publishing world--people who make up memoirs, writers who are completely rewritten by ghostwriters and editors, and some authors who are only "house names" and not real people at all. I didn't think questioning whether Chuck is writing bad novels on purpose or if he hired people to faint at his readings was really that big of a deal in light of what goes on. But I guess people don't know what goes on. We live in a world in which people think reality TV is real because of the title.
Holy shit thanks for the note about the est/Landmark Forum - had no idea.. very interested in following up that lead!
I'm a pretty un-writerly person so I fear I sound naïve here, but it has taken me some time to figure out what his writing style is. (Apologies if this is not a direct response to your post.)
The first person POV is direct to the reader. It often gives me the feeling I get when approached by a homeless person on the street. Like, "Hey mister, wanna by a watch? Got a cigarette? Have a second? Can I ask you a question?" I feel my guard go up a little. Or I suppose its like any person on the street trying and vying for one's attention. The protagonist is trying to sell me something or get me to buy in on something.
Yeah, guts was disgusting but not pass out disgusting. Just lose your lunch if you think about it too much disgusting.
The book is pretty meh too.
https://marlowe1.substack.com/p/action-illinois-by-mary-gaitskill