Interview: Palahniuk Discuses the Nihilism Label, Romanticism and Why ‘Rant’ Opened Up New Doors for His Writing

Chuck Palahniuk achieved cult fame with his first novel “Fight Club,” which spawned an instant fan following and a popular film. Since then, he has continued to find success with novels like “Survivor,” “Choke” and “Haunted.” Palahniuk is currently on tour to promote his latest novel, “Rant: An Oral Biography of Buster Casey,” in stores now.

Daily Californian: You have a large following on college campuses. What do you think your writing that speaks to this generation?

Chuck Palahniuk: Number one, I don’t think that younger people aren’t reading because they’re stupid. I think they’re less likely to read because they’re the smartest audience in the history of humanity. They’ve been exposed to more forms of storytelling than any other generation, so they’re looking for something different.

My books maybe tend to deal with subject matter that doesn’t get depicted very often. And it deals with it in a fairly dynamic way. Something’s happening in every scene. So the combination of a sort of salacious, sort of edgy, or challenging topic with a really dynamic, fast-moving plot would be two of the many different reasons.

DC: You’ve previously said that you’re not a nihilist and that your works are misinterpreted as nihilist. Why do you think that is, and do you think “Rant” will be received the same way?

CP: It will probably be received the same way, but my fallback is always, if you don’t believe what other folks believe, if you don’t buy into their value system, then they just write you off by calling you a nihilist. They don’t care what you believe in—it’s easy for them to say you don’t believe in anything. I think that’s why I get labeled a nihilist. But in fact, I’m totally a romantic. My books are about people destroying their own isolation and creating community. The nihilist label has kind of stuck now, 10 books, so I think it’ll continue to be thrown out there. In Europe, instead of a nihilist they call you a fascist. It’s more like a reflex that people really have very little understanding of. They just say it automatically.

DC: “Rant” is a different approach for you. Why did you decide on an oral biography, and what was it like to write in that style?

CP: There are three really important reasons for the oral biography. One, I find the form really easily consumable. Some of my favorite books are oral biographies, like the Jean Stein book called “Edie” about Edie Sedgwick. It is just such an incredibly readable form, such a dynamic, sexy, easily consumed form. It’s sort of a snack-sized, potato chip form of getting information bit by bit.

Two, it’s a nonfiction form. You can always tell a more outrageous, incredible story if you use a nonfiction form. The best examples are Orson Welles telling “War of the Worlds” through news broadcasts on the radio and giving that fantasy story an incredible gravity it didn’t have, and then later “Citizen Kane” being told through newsreels and journalism, telling that very melodramatic story with a reality it didn’t have. Or even the movie “Fargo”—when you open it with that single card statement that this story is based on actual events and is being told to honor those people who died, then you give that story this gravity and reality that it wouldn’t have, and it’s perceived in a whole different way, when in fact it was never based on any events. An oral biography is a nonfiction form that allows me to tell the most incredible story I can imagine.

Three, the form allows me to cut together information like a film editor. If you can juxtapose conflicting or contrasting perceptions about the same event, and you can organize and present material thematically as opposed to chronologically, it allows you to do so many really fun ways of presenting and editing information without really wordy transitional phrases and establishing shots, having to walk characters in and out of rooms to present new settings. You can instantly cut from thing to thing to thing.

DC: Is there any possibility of a film adaptation of “Rant,” and is that something you would like to see?

CP: We were negotiating the rights with Plan B, which is Brad Pitt’s production company, but “Rant” is the first of three books exploring the same characters and the same concepts. Whoever options the material wants to see at least an outline of the next two books before they buy the whole shebang. And I really don’t work from outlines, so that’s been a little bit of a sticking point. But it’s never really my priority to write something that can become a movie. My priority is to write the kind of book or tell the kind of story that only a book can tell at this point in history, because only books have that kind of freedom, the intimate nature of consumption that allows them to depict things that movies never can.

DC: You have so many different storytellers in “Rant.” Who was the most enjoyable character to write as, and who was the most challenging?

CP: The funnest character is always the sort of dopey sidekick. In “Choke” that would be Denny, or in “Fight Club” that would be Big Bob, and in this case, it was Bodie Carlyle. The sort of innocent, dopey sidekick apostle character is always the most fun. And the most challenging—it’s pretty much always difficult to write from the female perspective, so I would say that writing from Echo Lawrence’s perspective, or even Tina Something, but Echo Lawrence much more.

DC: You mentioned that “Rant” is the first part of a trilogy. How much of that do you have planned, and how much has been planned from the beginning?

CP: I know at this point it’s going to be three books, but between each of the three there’s going to be a short, funny, dark, totally unrelated book. For next year, I’ve got a book done called “Snuff,” which will come out next spring. The second “Rant” book will actually be out in two years. This way I have three years to work on each “Rant” book. Each book will sort of take on a different distinction that was established in this one. The next book will take on the concept of these Historians, people who have gone back and preempted their own conception and therefore placed themselves outside of a temporal reality, created themselves as immortal.

DC: Was there a person or a type of person who inspired the character of Rant?

CP: Rant is pretty much a reinvented Huckleberry Finn or Tom Sawyer archetype, that natural man who is really present in the natural world around him, and very present in his immediate intention. Whatever he’s doing, that’s what he’s doing. That’s the only thing he’s aware of. It does echo that Tom Sawyer, Huckleberry Finn, even Tyler Durden archetype of that very present, very visceral, very focused person who relates to the physical world. I’m trying to think of more examples of that—they tend to be kind of negative examples. I’m thinking of Tom Buchanan in “The Great Gatsby,” but it’s really more Huckleberry Finn, Tom Sawyer, even Thoreau.

DC: Do you view Rant as a positive character, a hero or an antihero?

CP: In a way, a positive character, but also it was very much my intention to write him a cipher, as a kind of vacuum around which everything would circle. People would describe themselves in describing him. He would be the mirror in which they would present their perceptions, what they wanted him to be. In a way, he’s much more of a projection of everyone around him than he is anything in and of himself.

DC: Rant meets his friends during a Party Crashing event, a sort of urban demolition derby. Would you ever take part in Party Crashing, and would any of the characters in your other novels?

CP: Done. I’ve done Party Crashing three times in four months, and twice in the Bay Area, and that’s where the whole idea came from, once again that cacophony in society inspiring me. Definitely in the other novels, this would be very much a “Fight Club” thing, or any of the other novels where people are looking for liminoid short-lived structures for being with other people. Really all that any of my books depict, even my non-fiction depicts, are liminoid events or liminoid spaces, as described by the anthropologist Victor Turner.

DC: How close is what you depicted of Party Crashing to the actual events?

CP: Very, very close. As much as I could remember, or as much as I could get people to tell me in terms of rules. “Fight Club” used rules as a transitional device, so they tended to be very dominant in the narrative, very reoccurring, because they were my touchstones for changing perspectives. I really didn’t want to outline the rules for Party Crashing for fear of echoing that structure, so I tended to be very vague about the Party Crashing rules.

DC: Another interesting aspect of “Rant” culture is the separation between Daytimers and Nighttimers. Which would you be?

CP: I would be a Nighttimer. There are people who sort of see themselves as part of the existing dominant culture, and there are people who feel frustration, as if they’re physically unable to fit into the dominant culture. I feel more like that, like the person who’s always faking my understanding of the greater culture.

DC: You’re currently doing the “Rant” book tour. What do you get out of interacting with your fans?

CP: This year since it’s ten years of books and ten books, in addition to taking questions, I’m going to be asking people at the events different trivia questions, and awarding prizes. … Whoever can answer these trivia questions about any of my books will get these prizes. Also there’s going to be some spectacular prizes for people who come dressed in wedding gowns, men or women. If you’re dressed in a wedding gown, you get a prize. It’s just a way of bringing people into the spectacle, building in a greater participation. What do I get out of it? Number one, I tend to get really great story ideas from people. People come up and tell me things that they’ve never told anybody, because they see me as a very safe person who’s not going to judge them and who’s going to allow them to tell their story. And number two, I’m kind of like a dog that’s been in the house all winter. It’s nice to get out and do these very public things. Number three, it’s a blast to physically be there and to prove to people, just by being present, that human beings do this job, and that if somebody as plain and ordinary as me can do this job, it sort of creates this possibility in the audience that somebody out there could do this job just as well. It creates this as a viable career, or goal, for those people. They see it being done by an ordinary person, so therefore it could be done by them.

DC: What advice do you have for aspiring writers?

CP: Number one, and this is a big number one, find a way to make writing a social event, to establish a structure, whether it’s a workshop or whatever you want to call it, so that you’re presenting your work to a group of supportive, fun people, at least once a week. Because otherwise you won’t write. If this is going to replace your free time, your recreation time, this better be just as much fun as anything else you could do with that time.

DC: You’ve been called the writer to watch to learn what’s coming next. What is coming next, and what can we learn from “Rant”?

CP: One thing I’m really fascinated by is the aesthetic coming together of implanted foreign things in our bodies. Fifty, sixty years ago, the idea of people having studs and piercings and all of the things we now put in ourselves was completely unheard of. The idea would be appalling. And starting with the safety pins and punk and now going to the very conventional nipple ring, nose ring, lip ring. And at the same time technology is getting smaller and smaller. It seems like we are right at the cusp of aesthetic technology coming together to implant any kind of cell phone or entertainment device in our skin. I wouldn’t be surprised if the next generation of iPod or cell phone was subcutaneous, and probably would show in a way that it would probably be a status indicator. The next Bluetooth telephone will actually be imbedded under our skin. Just because fashion and technology seem to be really both merging at that point.

DC: Is “Rant” a cautionary tale, then?

CP: No, no, “Rant” is a romance, like any of my other books.

Tags: