Book Review – Survivor by Chuck Palahniuk

Fight Club's Follow Up Reveals the Novelty of the Grotesque

May 27, 2009

Though Palahniuk's second book revels in obscenity, the most offensive aspect of the novel is the dull shock-writing that wore itself thin in his first book.

Just as an obsession with the grotesque pitfalls of a (heavily generalized) American ideology form the backbone for Chuck Palahniuk’s debut novel (the acclaimed Fight Club), his second book, Survivor (Anchor Books, ISBN: 0385498721, 1999), builds upon the same melodramatic territory. Instead of constructing a legitimate archetype of comical-yet-real fear, Survivor proves that Palahniuk has only tricks to work with, and very few of them at that.

The Creedish Death Cult and American Excess

The book opens and closes with scenes of anti-hero Tender Branson dictating his story into the flight recorder of the airplane he’s about to let crash into the Australian outback. In fact, the entire book is actually a transcription of the black box recording. It’s not an ineffective gimmick, but for how crucial it is to the plot (especially the weak explanation Palahniuk gives to the ending) it should be handled with a bit more tact. It was overkill even without the page numbers counting backwards.

Tender’s story finds him telling about his status as one of only a few survivors of the Creedish Death Cult, his love-interest (the clairvoyant Fertility Hollis), his job as a maid and etiquette consultant to the wealthy upper-class, and his rise to celebrity status when he becomes the “sole survivor.” With Palahniuk, this all translates into a big spiel peppered with biblical quotes. Survivor, if nothing else, is about how money, sexuality, and power cause nothing but a spiritual freeze on America.

Of course, it’s the “You are not . . .”/”I am Jack’s . . .” bit from the first book, only this time with bizarre cleaning/etiquette facts. Tender tells the reader that toothpaste is the easiest way to fill bullet holes in a wall. How to get blood off fur, wallpaper, piano keys. How to get urine stains out of a tablecloth.

He’s unrelenting with information like this (as well as how to eat certain foods, another of Tender’s jobs for the families he works with), but all it does is prove that he did research. Again, he lacks the tact to give just the right information. Another of his tricks is to give trite, sweeping ideas about celebrity and fame. The second half of the book finds Tender doing drugs, undergoing plastic surgery, and working out nonstop to keep his trim figure. He sells out his history and future because it’s “what America wants.”

Unfortunately, it’s nothing the reader hasn’t heard from cheap gossip rags in the checkout isle of the grocery store. Palahniuk’s famous line about “the only difference between suicide and martyrdom is press coverage” sounds like the revelation of a sixth grader with an impressive vocabulary. Survivor’s take on American excess may be absurd and eye-catching, but that doesn’t make it fresh. Other than his annoying, histrionic writing style, Palahniuk’s stale portrayal of celebrity is the most bothersome quality of the book.

Palahniuk’s Minimalistic, Repetitive Writing Style

Palahniuk’s “chorus” technique of repeating phrases is a method he utilized in Fight Club before using it in Survivor (as well as future books such as Lullaby). However, just as a song needs a strong chorus if it’s going to have one at all, a story’s chorus must be catchy and meaningful for it to succeed.

However, Palahniuk fails to create anything like Vonnegut’s “So it goes.” If he had, there’s no doubt he would have ruined it just by sheer repetition. His terse, single-sentence paragraphs become tiresome after the first dozen, and with hundreds of single-sentence paragraphs in the novel, the form almost resists embrace. If a song needs a great chorus, it doesn’t need it fifty times.

The work of Raymond Carver, Ernest Hemingway, and Amy Hempel proves that minimalistic writing is able to be successful. Where Palahniuk differs in his style is in terms of precision. The aforementioned writers were able to pull off toned-down prose because they were exact in the few words they chose. Palahniuk is merely scant, and though that alone qualifies his writing as minimalistic, the term is more descriptive of his story’s positive effects on the reader: not very much at all.

Easy Reading and Nothing Else

With all of its pitfalls, Survivor’s only redeeming quality may be its ease of reading. The story isn’t exactly captivating, but it doesn’t border on repelling (at least not like the style), either. Palahniuk has a knack for writing eye-roll-inducing endings that rely on coincidence, the supernatural, or some other unrelated illogicality. His endings seem like an afterthought rather than a product of craft. It’s almost as if he got 250 pages into a work and then remembered that it needs to stop soon.

If Survivor took any longer than a day-and-a-half of non-serious reading, it could be considered a waste of time. With how fast the pages turn, it’s not really fair to call it anything other than a disappointment. The books are all too similar to justify reading more than one of them, and for that, one would be best off reading Choke or Fight Club. While still written in the same style with the same problems, they pale in comparison to Survivor’s dilemmas.

The copyright of the article Book Review – Survivor by Chuck Palahniuk in American Fiction is owned by Ryan Werner. Permission to republish Book Review – Survivor by Chuck Palahniuk in print or online must be granted by the author in writing.

Jul 13, 2009 8:52 AM

Guest :

Nothing makes me happier than reading the pissing and moaning from book critics about Chuck Palahniuk's,"Shock writing", and then going to a sold-out book reading by Palahniuk.

Take note. He's popular because his books are funny and quick to the point. This review was helpful to me as I know now that I would not enjoy this book if I was suffering from a bowel obstruction.

Jul 13, 2009 10:42 AM

Ryan Werner :

I wouldn't enjoy this book unless I was suffering from a brain obstruction.

Argue his popularity all you'd like. It's certainly not a point that I brought up in this review, or ever would bring up in any sort of discussion of his work. He's really popular, and his ability to push the generic emotional buttons of the general public is pretty impressive.

My point is this: when I read a story, I want to read a well-written story. To say something is "funny and quick to the point" means nothing to me. Palahniuk's writing is cheap, and it promotes laziness in readers. Go ahead and read him for fun if you must, but don't go getting all offended when his glaring faults are continually pointed out.

Aug 26, 2009 6:46 AM

Guest :

i had not read anything of chucks, but was given this book by a good friend. I actually enjoyed it and disagree that it was boring. I thought it was the best book I have read this year and I am a huge book lover.