PMS – PalahniukMansonShock

Chuck Palahniuk is detested by his critics and adored by his fans. The author’s writing dictates no half measures – it’s love OR hate. And of course, there is always the third party which just doesn’t get it. Okay and a fourth party that appreciate from a distance but don’t get involved. Palahniuk is the Marilyn Manson of literature. He has been labelled a “shock writer” – similar to Manson‘s “shock rocker” title. I despise the use of the term shock in this context. Both novelist and singer certainly pack a punch but the reductive properties of the term overwhelm its impact: a) The group of people that these artists appeal to are shocked by very little b) How about about looking past the ‘shock’ value to consider what the point of the so-called ‘shock’ tactic is – what are these artists trying to say? Attaching prefix/adjective shock to the name of an artist applies the principle of ‘shock for shock’s sake’ to the artist’s creation, and this is in turn suggestive of the laziness and ignorance of the word’s user. It is a word usually coined by the we don’t get it group – the group that, as a general rule, avoids the Why? question.

I am a fan of both artists. Reason: I appreciate the base realism of what they say and how they say it. Palahniuk, particularly, exposes the core of the human soul – which is pretty grim much of the time. These artists take the most taboo and nausea-inducing part of the human condition and shout about it. They broadcast it to the masses. It’s raw, it’s gritty and there is no bullshit or pussy-footing. It’s Pop-Culture. Palahniuk and Manson challenge morality and ethics and question the necessity and purpose of these institutions – their art is almost nihilistic in tone. Both artists appeal to the marginalised, the miscreants, the outcasts. They speak to a generation characterised by the notion that restraint and censorship of tongue and thought is overrated. There are many different definitions attributed to the term Pop-Culture, and when trying to figure out who appreciates the grotesque realism of Palahniuk and Manson, the term needs to be understood. So here’s the best fitting definition: Pop-culture is “the culture that is “left over” when we have decided what “high culture” is”. It’s so perfectly apt. Palahniuk and Manson (P&M) – masters of the left over.

My favourite of all favourites is Palahniuk’s Invisible Monsters … and Haunted … and Fight Club … and … okay, I’m stopping. The first of my favourites is the story of Shannon the model, who believes “All god does is watch us and kill us when we get boring. We must never, ever be boring”, and Shannon responds accordingly… by shooting herself in the face with a gun, resulting in the loss of her lower jaw. This is not a suicide attempt. Shannon is just tired of being defined by her beauty. It doesn’t make her happy and it doesn’t make her loved. Solution: blow her face off. Invisible Monsters, like many of Palahniuk’s novels, examines the materialism and narcissism rampant amongst members of society, particularly the facebook generation and other social media addicts. Palahniuk observes: “The only reason why we ask other people how their weekend was is so we can tell them about our own weekend” (Invisible Monsters) and the narrator in Fightclub states, “This is why I loved the support groups so much. If people thought you were dying, they gave you their full attention. If this might be the last time they saw you, they really saw you. People listened instead of just waiting for their turn to speak. And when they spoke, they weren’t telling you a story. When the two of you talked, you were building something, and afterward you were both different than before”.

Haunted comprises twenty-three disgustingly brilliant and hysterical short stories, told by people who have answered an ad for a writer’s retreat and unwittingly joined a Survivor-like scenario where the host withholds heat, power, and food. The contestants share the same inherent narcissism that has instructed their acceptance of an invitation that leads them to believe that the dormant brilliance within will be awakened by a retreat from the distractions of ‘real life’ that are keeping them from creating the masterpiece that lies within, waiting to be unveiled. Palahniuk draws on the age-old tradition of story-telling and invokes a Canterbury-Tales Chauceresque type scenario in which contestants battle it out for the honour of best story/story-teller. The more extreme the conditions, the more extreme the stories. The novel begins with a story called Guts, which recounts interesting tales of tragically hilarious masturbation experiences – think American Pie 2, Jason Biggs and lube which is actually glue. Guts unfolds as follows: Mr Narrator, one hot day, thought it would be a good idea to fondle his sausage whilst sitting on the water intake at the bottom of his swimming pool, like any weirdo teenage boy might do in his quest for pleasure. Unfortunately, the suction resulted in the entanglement of the poor lad’s rectum and lower intestines in the filter, forcing him to gnaw through his own innards in order to free himself and avoid drowning. Mr Narrator’s sister, impregnated by her brother’s sperm after taking a swim after his pleasure-seeking escapade, aborts her baby. And this is just the first story. Guts comments on the repercussions of the Freudian pleasure-seeking, animalistic desire of the individual, which must be gratified at all costs. It is an insane! insane! experience ‘watching’ these contestants fight for the title of sole survivor by concocting schemes involving mutilation and cannibalism. The novel draws attention to the destructive nature of human beings. Palahniuk uses physical mutilation as a metaphor to expose the emotional mutilation humans inflict on one another and themselves – in excess.

It is a breath of fresh air when artists such as P&M are able to escape the entrapments of social decorum and media propaganda, and just say what they want to say – say it like it is. If you don’t like it, don’t read it and don’t listen to it. Palahniuk takes it a step further with his black humour and brilliant satire, which is encapsulated through a narrative technique that he has termed “transgressional fiction”, whereby “characters are people who have been marginalized in one form or another by society, and who react with often self-destructive aggressiveness”. Palahniuk’s readers are reminded of novelists Bret Easton Ellis and Irvine Welsh, who adopt a similar technique as a tool for social commentary. P&M are aware of the glaring irony inherent in a society that has created the very miscreants it rejects and judges. In the words of Lilly Allen “It’s not my fault/ it’s how I’m programmed to function”. Palahniuk is by no means entirely sympathetic to his marginalised characters – his ridicule and satire is all encompassing. He is an author well aware of the absurdity of what he is saying and he draws on this absurdity to make greater points and observations. Exaggeration is a tool that enables social commentary. The man is by no means subtle – another reason I appreciate his style. His novels centre largely on his character’s attempts to feel and to be happy, and mostly, they are unsuccessful because their humanness gets in the way. In Fight Club, Palahniuk’s characters combat their detached loneliness by living vicariously through the pain of others at support groups. For the narrator (Tyler Durden’s other half) this evolves into the act of inducing physical pain in order to feel. The greater metaphor is that people are like zombies and will do anything to engage and feel…even if it is absurd, brutal and disgusting. It’s social commentary at its best.

Marilyn Manson articulates his thoughts on society in Michael Moore’s documentary Bowling for Columbine. Manson comments on the use of fear by authority-wielding institutions as a tool to control the masses. Manipulation and domination through the imposition of fear is a concept effectively dealt with in Alan Moore’s V for Vendetta, which suggests that ruling through fear and force will result in a fascist regime. The media, the public and parents placed the blame on Manson by holding him responsible for the victims of the Columbine massacre. When people cannot understand behaviour, they seek to label and explain that which they do not understand. This is a fear driven-impulse. A fear propagated by so many institutes of authority. I am by no means undermining the effect that music (and literature) has on an individual’s mind but what ever happened to taking responsibility for one’s own actions? When Manson is asked what he would have said to the Columbine killers, he states that he would not have said anything, he would have listened. Poignant. The nature of the man is reflected in his chosen name – Marilyn after the beautiful Marilyn Monroe and Manson after infamous killer and occultist Charles Manson. The singer’s pet peeve is grammatical errors – a sign of ‘high culture’, and yet he is a boozing, drug-taking, sex-fiend who is known for some pretty gross stage performances that include indecent exposure and defecation. The beauty of Coma White contrasts with the hard-hitting lyrical content of Beautiful People. Manson is the non-fiction version of Palahniuk’s fiction – a representative of humanity at its most vulgar, which contrasts with the singer’s obvious intelligence and talent. Contradiction, it’s the human condition.

Artists have the ability to inspire and to manipulate – with words, with music and with colour, lines and brush-strokes. Therein lays the inherent beauty and danger of Art. Many argue that artists such as P&M merely perpetuate the moral degeneration of culture and society. Perhaps. Again I ask, at what point is the individual required to take responsibility for his/her actions? Actions and behaviour that propagate the moral degradation of humanity. It is easy to blame the artist rather than his audience. Art reflects the time in which it is created. It is a snapshot of society – its idealism and its hard reality. Perhaps Palahniuk’s exaggerated representation of the ugly and sordid elements of human existence, of society and its in-dwellers, is a warning. Perhaps it is a cry for the return of morality. This is the beauty and irony of art – within the framework of its manipulative properties is its potential to spark an idea, a thought or an inspiration. Whatever influences our response to art (the artist or society) is redundant. How we respond and what we do with our response is important.

Other posts you might like: